Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using Polyvinylidene Fluoride Versus Titanium Mesh Membranes - A Randomized Clinical Trial
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 42
- 试验地点
- 1
- 主要终点
- horizontal ridge augmentation
研究概览
简要总结
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a new PVDF non-resorbable membrane versus Titanium Mesh in the treatment of horizontal ridge defects prepared for implant placement
详细描述
Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth loss frequently results in horizontal deficiencies that complicate optimal implant placement. To address this, guided bone regeneration (GBR) techniques have become standard in clinical practice, relying on barrier membranes to stabilize graft material and exclude soft tissue interference during healing Titanium mesh membranes have been widely utilized in GBR due to their excellent mechanical strength and ability to maintain space in large or complex defects. Their rigidity ensures stability of the graft material, promoting favorable bone regeneration outcomes. However, the stiffness of titanium meshes can lead to complications such as soft tissue dehiscence and membrane exposure, potentially compromising the regenerative process On the other hand, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membranes have emerged as a promising alternative in GBR procedures. PVDF is a biocompatible, chemically stable polymer known for its flexibility and resistance to bacterial colonization. Its pliable nature allows for better adaptation to the defect site, potentially reducing the risk of membrane exposure and associated complications. Additionally, the smooth surface of PVDF membranes may minimize soft tissue irritation, further enhancing healing outcomes Materials and methods Study design and patient selection This study was designed as a randomized, controlled, parallel-arm, triple-blinded clinical trial aimed at rigorously comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes of ridge augmentation procedures utilizing two distinct materials: titanium mesh and high-density polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane. In this trial, participants, clinical outcome assessors, and statisticians were kept blind to the treatments being administered to mitigate bias. However, due to the inherent nature of the surgical procedures involved, the operating surgeon could not be blinded.
Participants were selected from the outpatient clinic at the Department of Oral Medicine, Oral Diagnosis, and Periodontology at the Faculty of Dentistry, Nahda University, Beni Suef, Egypt. Inclusion criteria were clearly defined, ensuring that only eligible candidates participated in the study. Prior to enrollment, written informed consent was meticulously obtained from all participants after providing a thorough explanation of the experimental procedures, potential risks, and anticipated benefits associated with their involvement in the research.
The study was conducted in strict adherence to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Additionally, it complied with the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. The Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minia, Egypt, granted approval for the study, which was registered under a specific registration number ( ) to ensure compliance and transparency in the research process. (clinical trial registration number) 2.2 | Patient Selection
Patient selection underwent stringent selection criteria as follows:
Inclusion criteria:
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- Triple (Participant, Care Provider, Outcomes Assessor)
盲法说明
PVDF membrane with bone graft used for horizontal ridge augmentation
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 55 Years(Adult)
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- •All patients were diagnosed with Class I (Horizontal ridge deficiency) according to Seibert's classification of alveolar ridge deficiencies (Seibert, 1983) .Maxilla and mandible partial edentulism, not more than 2 teeth missing with D3, D4 bone density(Smith & Zarb, 1989).
- •Presence of a horizontally deficient edentulous ridge (Low < 5 mm) (Misch et al., 2021).
- •Good systemic health (ASA I ) (Böhmer et al., 2021).
- •Patients aged 18-55 years.
- •Non-smokers or light smokers (<10 cigarettes/day).
排除标准
- •Poor oral hygiene with BOP > 20%.
- •Heavy smoking (more than 10 cigarettes per day).
- •local and systemic acute infection.
- •Patients who received radiotherapy in the head and neck within the previous five years.
研究组 & 干预措施
control group
This study conducted two main surgical interventions: (T0) one for bone reconstruction and (T1) another for membrane removal following exposure. During the first surgery (T0), patients rinsed with a 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash (Eva Pharma, Giza, Egypt) for 60 seconds. All selected sites were anesthetized using articaine hydrochloride 4% with adrenaline (1:100,000) (Artinibsa, Inibsa Spain, Wedjat Pharma). A mid-crestal incision was made, extending to a sulcular incision of adjacent teeth, which included one mesial tooth and two distal teeth. In the edentulous area, the flap extended 3-4 mm posterior to the defect site, along with two vertical releasing incisions. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was raised with a mucoperiosteal elevator (Molt Elevator No. 9, Hu-Friedy®, Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co., LLC. USA) to expose the defect site and adjacent bone; the buccal flap extended apically 5 mm beyond the defect site with a periosteal releasing incision (PRI) for flap mov
干预措施: titanium membrane (Procedure)
study group
This study conducted two main surgical interventions: (T0) one for bone reconstruction and (T1) another for membrane removal following exposure. During the first surgery (T0), patients rinsed with a 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash (Eva Pharma, Giza, Egypt) for 60 seconds. All selected sites were anesthetized using articaine hydrochloride 4% with adrenaline (1:100,000) (Artinibsa, Inibsa Spain, Wedjat Pharma). A mid-crestal incision was made, extending to a sulcular incision of adjacent teeth, which included one mesial tooth and two distal teeth. In the edentulous area, the flap extended 3-4 mm posterior to the defect site, along with two vertical releasing incisions. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was raised with a mucoperiosteal elevator (Molt Elevator No. 9, Hu-Friedy®, Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co., LLC. USA) to expose the defect site and adjacent bone; the buccal flap extended apically 5 mm beyond the defect site with a periosteal releasing incision (PRI) for flap mov
干预措施: titanium membrane (Procedure)
结局指标
主要结局
horizontal ridge augmentation
时间窗: After 6 months
determined from a CBCT radiograph taken with the same machine (SCANORA® 3Dx CBCT scanner, Finland). This measurement was evaluated 2 mm below the highest crestal point. At baseline and six months after surgery, the difference between the two measurements was calculated using the formula: HBG (mm) = Postoperative width - Preoperative width.
次要结局
未报告次要终点
研究者
shaimaa hamdy
lecturer of oral periodontology oral medicine and diagnosis
Minia University
