Comparison of Two Types of Bone Grafts in Patients Who Need One of Their Front Teeth Removed and Replaced With an Implant

The study will compare clinical, radiographic (dental cone beam computed tomography) and histologic outcomes upon tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) as well as clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes upon implant placement and crown fabrication at the same site.

Both bone graft materials (FDBA and CEBX) are FDA approved and are widely available in the US market and are routinely used in everyday practices and within the university.

* FDBA is produced by Community Blood Center (Community Tissue Services, Ohio, USA) (FEI: 3008808182). * CEBX is produced by Geistlich Pharma AG (Wolhusen, Switzerland) \[501(k) #: K122894\].

Both materials will be stored and utilized based on manufacturers' recommendations and as per of Standard of Care protocols within the university.

Participants and investigators will be unaware of the envelope content and each participant will be asked to randomly pick an envelope and immediately both the participant as well as the investigator will be informed about the envelope content and, therefore, the group allocation. Eventually, participants and investigators will be aware of the group allocation, except for the investigator who will conduct all the study measurements who will remain blinded.

Upon healing, both groups will receive similar treatment as far as implant placement and crown restoration is concerned.

Interventions and procedures

The study-related interventions and procedures will more specifically include:

1. Evaluation of horizontal and vertical ridge dimensional changes as well as contour changes upon standard of care procedures (alveolar ridge preservation) through cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning, respectively, after 16 weeks of healing. 2. Determination of the feasibility of prosthetically driven implant placement upon standard of care evaluation of the post-healing cone beam computed tomography, at 16 weeks after ARP. 3. Histological evaluation of the healed grafted area upon grafting with frequently used bone graft materials at 16 weeks of healing. 4. Assessment of peri-implant clinical and radiographic parameters as well as crown esthetics and patient satisfaction upon 12 months from the dental implant placement.

• Mean change in alveolar ridge contour [Срок оценки: baseline to 4 weeks after surgery]
• Mean change in alveolar ridge contour [Срок оценки: baseline to 2 months after implant placement, approximately 24 weeks]
• Mean change in alveolar ridge contour [Срок оценки: baseline to 12 months after implant placement, approximately 70 weeks]
• Number of implants/participants with an implant placed on a prosthetically driven position [Срок оценки: 16 weeks]
• Mean percentage of residual bone graft particles [Срок оценки: 16 weeks]
• Mean percentage of new bone formation [Срок оценки: 16 weeks]
• Mean percentage of connective tissue [Срок оценки: 16 weeks]
• Mean probing depth [Срок оценки: 2 months after implant placement (approximately 24 weeks) and 12 months after implant placement (approximately 70 weeks)]
• Mean percentage of implant surfaces with bleeding [Срок оценки: 2 months after implant placement (approximately 24 weeks) and 12 months after implant placement (approximately 70 weeks)]
• Mean percentage of implant surfaces with plaque [Срок оценки: 2 months after implant placement (approximately 24 weeks) and 12 months after implant placement (approximately 70 weeks)]
• Mean width of keratinized mucosa [Срок оценки: 2 months after implant placement (approximately 24 weeks) and 12 months after implant placement (approximately 70 weeks)]
• Mean migration of peri-implant mucosal margin [Срок оценки: 2 months after implant placement (approximately 24 weeks) and 12 months after implant placement (approximately 70 weeks)]