Mix of Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft and Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: a Possible Solution for Alveolar Ridge Preservation?

Overview

The purpose of the study is to compare a new grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation to a commonly used and well studied material. Alveolar ridge dimensions as well as histology will be compared.

Detailed description

Brief Background and Goal: Dimensional changes following extractions are inevitable. Many techniques and combinations of materials have been studied and shown to be effective at minimizing these changes. Although no material has been able to fully preserve the ridge, xenografts have been shown to be the most effective at maintaining the volume, however, the use of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) results in the most vital bone when evaluated histologically. These factors are important when planning for a successful future implant supported prosthesis. A new material that combines xenograft (deproteinized bovine bone mineral - DBBM) with DFDBA has recently been introduced to the market. The aim of the study is to compare the dimensional and histological changes following flapless alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in the premolar and molar region with a new material that combines DFDBA and DBBM to a commonly used mineralized allograft.

Research Question: In patients who require an extraction for future implant placement, during alveolar ridge preservation, will combining demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared to Tutoplast® processed mineralized particulate allograft result in less dimensional changes at the time of implant placement 4 months later.

Specific Aims: The primary goal of the study is to compare the dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation with a new material that combines DFDBA and DBBM to a commonly used mineralized allograft material. The secondary goal is to assess the histological composition of the bone after 4 months of healing. The additional goals are to measure possible confounding factors on the dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge.

Significance: The goal behind the combination of DBBM and DFDBA is to evaluate whether there could potentially be a synergistic effect between the two materials that would make it a more desirable material to use for ARP procedures.

Innovation: There is currently no published research that compares the combination of DFDBA and DBBM to a conventional method inside the extraction site during an alveolar ridge preservation procedure. This grafting material is new on the market and the first of its kind.

Research Plan: The randomized clinical trial will be performed at the Nova Southeastern College of Dental Medicine in the Post-graduate Periodontology Clinic. 30 patients requiring premolar or molar extraction with future implant placement will be randomly divided into 2 groups, one test and one control. Following extraction, the patients will receive either allograft or graft combination of DFDBA and DBBM. The changes in horizontal and vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge as well as the histology will be assessed and compared at 4 months.

Expected Results: When compared to allograft, the graft mixture containing the DFDBA and DBBM will maintain greater dimensional volume due to the dimensionally stable properties of DBBM and will contain more vital bone due to the osteoinductive properties of DFDBA.

Interventions

• Procedure Alveolar ridge preservation
  Premolar tooth will be extracted flapless and ridge preservation procedure with bone grafting material will be done.

Primary outcome measures

• changes in horizontal dimensions of the alveolar ridge [Time frame: 4 months]
• changes in vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge [Time frame: 4 months]

Secondary outcome measures (1)

• vital bone percentage [Time frame: 4 months]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

• Patients in good health
• Require the extraction of at least one premolar or molar with future implant placement
• Sufficient keratinized gingiva (equal or more than 2mm prior to extraction),
• No more than 3mm of buccal bone loss
• Flapless extraction possible
• Full mouth plaque index of less than 25%

Exclusion criteria

• Nicotine consumption equivalent to or more than 10 cigarettes per day
• Electronic cigarette usage
• A history of irradiation of head and neck area
• Immunodeficiency disease
• Uncontrolled systemic health problems (hypertension crisis 180/120, hyperthyroidism, diabetes with HbA1c over 7, recent history of stroke, cancer) History of medications that affect bone remodeling process (bisphosphonates, RANK-L inhibitors)
• Previous adverse reaction to the biomaterials used
• Pregnancy/lactation, or those who are trying to become pregnant.
• Active uncontrolled or untreated periodontal disease
• Periapical lesions greater than 1 cm and soft tissue pathology

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: Yes

Study design

Allocation

Randomized

Model

Parallel assignment

Masking

Double blind

Primary purpose

Treatment

Study locations

United States · 1 center

• Nova Southeastern University — Fort Lauderdale

Publications

• Amler MH. The time sequence of tissue regeneration in human extraction wounds. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969 Mar;27(3):309-18. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(69)90357-0. No abstract available. PMID 5251474
• Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug;23(4):313-23. PMID 12956475
• Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):84-102. doi: 10.1111/prd.12170. PMID 28000278
• Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:1-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x. PMID 22211303
• Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Feb;32(2):212-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x. PMID 15691354
• Hammerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:26-8. No abstract available. PMID 15635943
• Ten Heggeler JM, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Aug;22(8):779-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02064.x. Epub 2010 Nov 22. PMID 21091540
• Avila-Ortiz G, Gubler M, Romero-Bustillos M, Nicholas CL, Zimmerman MB, Barwacz CA. Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Dent Res. 2020 Apr;99(4):402-409. doi: 10.1177/0022034520905660. Epub 2020 Feb 12. PMID 32050833

Identifiers

NCT: NCT06275789 · 2023-268

Primary sources (government registries)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (US NIH)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗