Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Different Wound Closure Methods in Immediate Implant Placement in the Aesthetic Zone

NCT ID: NCT05127629

Last Updated: 2022-03-31

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

20 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2021-04-01

Study Completion Date

2022-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Implant-supported restorations have become one of the best treatment options for patients with tooth loss, with predictable long-term success rates and clinical outcomes. Immediate implant placement means the implant is placed immediately after tooth extraction. It can significantly reduce treatment time because extraction socket healing and implant osseointegration occur simultaneously. Immediate implant placement has many benefits, reducing the overall treatment time, reducing the patient's surgical procedures, and reducing surgical trauma (no flap reversal). However, the treatment also has significant limitations, including the inability to predict the possibility of bone and soft tissue healing, and the possibility of subsequent unfavorable esthetic outcomes. However, the evidence regarding soft and hard tissue and aesthetic outcomes in patients treated with immediate implants in the aesthetic area remains inconclusive. As the aesthetic success of implant restorations is increasingly valued over implant survival, there are significant clinical benefits to addressing immediate implant bone tissue resorption and soft tissue deficiencies and improving the aesthetic outcome of immediate implant restorations.

To address the potential health and aesthetic problems associated with soft and hard tissue deficiencies around dental implants, bone grafting in the jumping gap and soft tissue grafting procedures are often performed. According to literature, autologous soft tissue grafts have shown the best clinical and histological results in soft tissue regeneration techniques. However, it requires removal of tissue from the patient's donor area, which can add additional trauma. In contrast, gelatin sponges, currently commonly used as wound closure materials, are only hemostatic and rapidly absorbed postoperatively, and do not provide protection of hard and soft tissue augmentation. Collagen matrix has recently been introduced for keratinized gingival augmentation and has shown encouraging results in preclinical and clinical studies, but more information is needed to confirm its clinical efficacy. Mucograft® Seal is a porcine collagen matrix with a bilayer structure, a dense and slowly absorbing layer and a spongy layer that stabilizes blood clots and allows soft tissue cells to penetrate. Human gingival fibroblasts cultured on Mucograft® were demonstrated to have good proliferative properties and cell viability as scaffold material. In dog extraction sites, preliminary results suggest that the combination of Mucograft® and Bio-Oss Collagen may be an effective method for alveolar ridge preservation. Mucograft® Seal can be used in combination with Bio-Oss Collagen® for alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction.

The research hypothesis is that the use of a collagen matrix to seal the wound in immediate implant placement in aesthetic area will reduce buccal bone resorption and increase the width and thickness of the soft tissue at the implant site.

Therefore, we designed this comparative clinical trial in which patients accept immediate implant placement in aesthetic area. The implant is placed after tooth extraction, and bone graft material Bio-Oss Collagen® is placed in the jump gap, and the wound was closed by different means (collagen matrix or gelatin sponge randomly). The clinical examination, CBCT imaging and histological evaluations were performed to compare the differences in clinical efficacy of the two wound closure methods. The primary outcome is the buccal bone thickness change at the immediate implant site 4 months after surgery.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Tooth Fracture Tooth Decay

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Control

Group Type PLACEBO_COMPARATOR

Immediate implant placement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

After tooth extraction, a dental implant is placed immediately.

Guided bone regeneration

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

After implant placement, the gap between implant and the buccal bone wall is filled with Bio-oss collagen.

Wound closure with gelatin sponge

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

After guided bone regeneration, patient in the control group receive gelatin sponge for wound closure.

Collagen matrix

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Immediate implant placement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

After tooth extraction, a dental implant is placed immediately.

Guided bone regeneration

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

After implant placement, the gap between implant and the buccal bone wall is filled with Bio-oss collagen.

Wound closure with collagen matrix

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

After guided bone regeneration, patient in the control group receive collagen matrix (Mucograft Seal) for wound closure.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Immediate implant placement

After tooth extraction, a dental implant is placed immediately.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Guided bone regeneration

After implant placement, the gap between implant and the buccal bone wall is filled with Bio-oss collagen.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Wound closure with gelatin sponge

After guided bone regeneration, patient in the control group receive gelatin sponge for wound closure.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Wound closure with collagen matrix

After guided bone regeneration, patient in the control group receive collagen matrix (Mucograft Seal) for wound closure.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Patients who are at least 18 years old and in good health;
2. Single tooth in the maxillary anterior aesthetic area to be extracted for immediate implant placement;
3. The labial bone plate is intact and there is sufficient bone in the apical region to ensure initial stability.
4. Healthy intraoral soft tissues and no infection.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Need to place more than 1 implant in the aesthetic area.
2. Heavy smokers (\> 10 cigarettes/day).
3. Patients with physical diseases such as: uncontrolled diabetes (fasting glucose \> 7.2 mmol/L, glycosylated hemoglobin \> 7%), current intake of bisphosphonate medication, history of head and neck malignancy, history of head and neck radiotherapy, pregnancy or preparation for pregnancy, etc.
4. Patients with uncontrolled periodontitis and unstable periodontal status.
5. Lateral labial bone plate defect;
6. Missing teeth;
7. Allergic to titanium;

e. Those who do not wish to participate in this study.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Junyu Shi

Principal Investigator

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantology

Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

China

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Beilei Liu, Doctor

Role: CONTACT

13061800982

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Jun-Yu Shi, MDS

Role: primary

23271073

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

20210205.V1

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.