Clinical Research Directory

Evaluation of Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation Using Xenograft Versus L-PRF Block Combined With Xenograft

Rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla with dental implants is frequently complicated by insufficient residual bone height resulting from alveolar ridge resorption and maxillary sinus pneumatization. Lateral sinus floor elevation has become a predictable and widely accepted procedure for increasing bone volume and enabling implant placement in severely atrophic posterior maxillary sites. The long-term success of this procedure is largely dependent on the grafting material used to maintain space beneath the elevated Schneiderian membrane and promote new bone formation. Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), commonly known as xenograft, remains the most extensively documented grafting material for sinus augmentation due to its osteoconductive properties, volumetric stability, and favorable long-term clinical outcomes. However, xenografts are characterized by slow remodeling and prolonged persistence of residual graft particles, which may delay replacement by vital bone. Consequently, strategies to enhance the biological activity of xenografts and accelerate bone regeneration have become an area of considerable research interest. Leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) is a second-generation autologous platelet concentrate containing a fibrin matrix enriched with platelets, leukocytes, cytokines, and growth factors including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β). These biological mediators may enhance angiogenesis, accelerate wound healing, stimulate osteoblast proliferation, and improve bone regeneration. Several studies have demonstrated promising outcomes when L-PRF is used in sinus augmentation procedures. Mazor et al. reported successful bone formation and implant placement following sinus augmentation using PRF as the sole grafting material after six months of healing. Histological analysis demonstrated the formation of newly regenerated vital bone within the augmented sinus compartment. More recently, Cortellini et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing L-PRF block and DBBM in lateral sinus floor elevation. Although both techniques allowed successful implant placement after six months, differences in volumetric stability and graft remodeling were observed. The authors suggested that L-PRF-containing grafts may represent a biologically active alternative capable of enhancing healing while maintaining sufficient bone volume for implant placement. Pichotano et al. further demonstrated that combining L-PRF with DBBM accelerated bone maturation and facilitated earlier implant placement when compared with xenograft alone. Histomorphometric findings revealed greater percentages of newly formed bone and reduced healing times in the L-PRF group. Despite these promising findings, the available evidence remains limited, and there is no clear consensus regarding whether the addition of L-PRF to xenografts results in clinically significant improvements in bone regeneration, volumetric maintenance, and implant site development. Therefore, a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing xenograft alone versus L-PRF block combined with xenograft during lateral sinus floor elevation is warranted.

Socket Shield Technique With CGF and Xenograft for Immediate Implants

This prospective case series aims to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of immediate implant placement using the socket shield technique combined with concentrated growth factors (CGF) and xenograft in the esthetic zone. The study will assess crestal bone level changes and implant stability over a 6-month follow-up period.

Autologous Dentine Graft Compared to Xenograft in Managing Periodontally Compromised Second Molar After Third Molar Removal

The goal of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of autologous dentin graft (ADG) in treating periodontal defects on the distal aspect of mandibular 2nd molar (M2) after surgical removal of impacted mandibular 3rd molar (M3) by improving periodontal and radiological outcomes when compared with a xenograft, which is commercially available. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. How does the clinical efficacy of ADG compare to xenografts, regarding wound healing and periodontal parameters at the distal aspect of periodontally compromised mandibular M2 following impacted M3 extraction? 2. How does the radiological bone regeneration at ADG-grafted sites differ from that at xenograft-grafted sites? 3. How do the post-operative patient-reported outcomes at sites receiving ADG differ from those at sites receiving xenografts? Researchers will compare ADG to xenograft to see if ADG is more efficacious in managing periodontal defects on distal aspect of M2 after surgical removal of M3. Participants will 1. Undergo bilateral surgical removal of M3 under general anaesthesia 2. Receive ADG on test site and xenograft on contralateral control site 3. Come back for clinical assessments, wound healing assessments and radiographic assessments for 5 times after the surgery (2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months)

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

The purpose of this study is to compare two different bone graft materials (freeze-dried bone allograft, FDBA and collagen-enriched bovine xenograft, CEBX) that are routinely used for preserving the remaining bone after extraction of an anterior tooth, and before placing a dental implant. Patients will be randomly assigned to either group (flip of a coin) One group will receive FDBA material and the other group will receive CEBX (cow) material. The study aims to examine the following main questions: * Potential differences in linear radiographic horizontal (HRD) and vertical (VRD) ridge dimensional changes between groups after 16 weeks of healing * Other clinical information of the treated areas and information regarding the esthetics of the dental implant that will subsequently be placed at the edentulous site as well as patient satisfaction with the treatment, will be evaluated. The study will include 7 study visits. Study procedures will take place during the same visits as the standard of care treatments (tooth extraction and bone graft, dental implant placement, crown installation and follow-ups). Clinical information from these standard of care visits will be used for the current research study, such as: * Demographic information * Clinical information from intraoral photographs * Radiographic information from cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs.