scholarly journals Comparison between two bone substitutes for alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: Cone‐beam computed tomography results of a non‐inferiority randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Hugo Llanos ◽  
Vítor Marques Sapata ◽  
Ronald E. Jung ◽  
Christoph H. Hämmerle ◽  
Daniel S. Thoma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation

Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Avila-Ortiz ◽  
M. Gubler ◽  
M. Romero-Bustillos ◽  
C.L. Nicholas ◽  
M.B. Zimmerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation

Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy is indicated to attenuate the physiologic resorptive events that occur as a consequence of tooth extraction with the purpose of facilitating tooth replacement therapy. This randomized controlled trial was primarily aimed at testing the efficacy of ARP as compared with unassisted socket healing. A secondary objective was to evaluate the effect that local phenotypic factors play in the volumetric reduction of the alveolar bone. A total of 53 subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomized into either the control group, which involved only tooth extraction (EXT n = 27), or the experimental group, which received ARP using a combination of socket grafting with a particulate bone allograft and socket sealing with a nonabsorbable membrane (dPTFE) following tooth extraction (ARP n = 26). A set of clinical, linear, volumetric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed during a 14-wk healing period. All linear bone assessments (horizontal, midbuccal, and midlingual reduction) revealed that ARP is superior to EXT. Likewise, volumetric bone resorption was significantly higher in the control group (mean ± SD: EXT = −15.83% ± 4.48%, ARP = −8.36% ± 3.81%, P < 0.0001). Linear regression analyses revealed that baseline buccal bone thickness is a strong predictor of alveolar bone resorption in both groups. Interestingly, no significant differences in terms of soft tissue contour change were observed between groups. Additional bone augmentation to facilitate implant placement in a prosthetically acceptable position was deemed necessary in 48.1% of the EXT sites and only 11.5% of the ARP sites ( P < 0.004). Assessment of perceived postoperative discomfort at each follow-up visit revealed a progressive decrease over time, which was comparable between groups. Although some extent of alveolar ridge remodeling occurred in both groups, ARP therapy was superior to EXT as it was more efficacious in the maintenance of alveolar bone and reduced the estimated need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01794806).

scholarly journals Alveolar ridge preservation with a collagen material: a randomized controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigmar Schnutenhaus ◽  
Isabel Doering ◽  
Jens Dreyhaupt ◽  
Heike Rudolph ◽  
Ralph G. Luthardt
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation

scholarly journals Cone beam computed tomography for detecting residual stones in percutaneous nephrolithotomy, a randomized controlled trial (CAPTURE) protocol

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Kingma ◽  
I. J. de Jong ◽  
M. J. W. Greuter ◽  
S. Roemeling
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Total Study Population ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Free Status

Abstract Introduction Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the standard surgical treatment method for large kidney stones. Its aim is to achieve a stone-free status, since any residual fragments (RFs) after PCNL are likely to cause additional morbidity or stone growth. Enhancing intraoperative detectability of RFs could lead to increased stone-free rates and decreased re-intervention rates. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has recently been introduced in urology as a feasible method for intraoperatively imaging RFs. The aim of this trial is to determine the added value of CBCT in percutaneous nephrolithotomy, by measuring differences in stone-related morbidity for patients with procedures in which a CBCT is used versus patients with procedures without the use of CBCT. Methods The CAPTURE trial is an investigator-initiated single-center, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adult patients who have an indication for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A contemporary percutaneous nephrolithotomy is performed. Once the surgeon is convinced of a stone-free status by means of fluoroscopy and nephroscopy, randomization allocates patients to either the study group in whom an intraoperative CBCT scan is performed or to the control group in whom no intraoperative CBCT scan is performed. The main endpoint is the stone-free status as assessed four weeks postoperatively by low-dose non-contrast abdominal CT, as a standard follow-up procedure. Secondary endpoints include the number of PCNL procedures required and the number of stone-related events (SREs) registered. The total study population will consist of 320 patients that undergo PCNL and are eligible for randomization for an intraoperative CBCT scan. Discussion We deem a randomized controlled trial to be the most effective and reliable method to assess the efficacy of CBCT in PCNL. Though some bias may occur due to the impossibility of blinding the urologist at randomization, we estimate that the pragmatic nature of the study, standardized circumstances, and follow-up methods with pre-defined outcome measures will result in a high level of evidence. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) NL8168, ABR NL70728.042.19. Registered on 15 October 2019. Prospectively registered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document