Validity of Ozonated Olive Oil Gel Versus Injectable Bone Graft

January 20, 2026 updated by: Suez Canal University

Validity of Ozonated Olive Oil Gel Versus Injectable Bone Graft on Osseointegration of Immediate Dental Implants

Many of studies have been performed to improve osseointegration and bone density around implants by modifying the implant by adding bone graft or substitute material that increase success of implant. The aim of this study is to evaluate clinically and radiographically the efficacy of injectable bone graft versus ozonated olive oil gel to promote bone formation and improve outcomes in immediate implant cases. 16 immediate implants will be placed in mandibular premolar region the study will be devided equally and randomlly into two groups , Group 1: it will be 8 immediate implants represent the control group were the implants will be placed with injectable bone graft , Group 2: will be 8 immediate implant represent the study group were the implants will be placed with ozonated olive oil gel be used as a graft material . The implant stability will be assessed clinically using Ostell , and the bone density will be assed radiographically .

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

16

Phase

  • Phase 2

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Ismailia, Egypt
        • Suez Canal University, Faculty of Dentistry

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion criteria:

  • Adults aged between 20 and 60 years.
  • Adults of both genders.
  • Patients who are medically healthy and without systemic conditions that could contraindicate implant placement.
  • Patients requiring extraction of a single unrestorable mandibular premolar indicated for immediate implant placement.
  • Presence of sufficient apical and peripheral bone to achieve primary implant stability (minimum 3-5 mm of bone beyond the socket apex and overall socket length ≥ 10 mm).

Exclusion criteria:

  • Pregnant and lactating women's
  • Heavy smoking (>10 cigarettes/day)
  • Severe parafunctional habits (e.g., uncontrolled bruxism).
  • Periapical infections or lesions.
  • Gingival and periodontal diseases.
  • Inability or unwillingness to attend scheduled follow-up visits.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Group I (Control Group)
8 implants were inserted immediately after teeth extraction with grafting of injectable β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) bone graft around the implant.
Placement of a dental implant immediately after tooth extraction in the mandibular premolar region following standard surgical protocol.
Immediate implant placement in the mandibular premolar region with application of injectable bone graft material to the peri-implant defect.
Other Names:
  • Control Group
  • Group I
Experimental: Group II (Study Group)
8 implants were inserted immediately after teeth extraction with grafting of ozonated olive oil gel around the implant.
Placement of a dental implant immediately after tooth extraction in the mandibular premolar region following standard surgical protocol.
Immediate implant placement in the mandibular premolar region with application of ozonated olive oil gel to the peri-implant defect.
Other Names:
  • Study Group
  • Group II

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Implant Stability (ISQ)
Time Frame: Baseline, and 6 months postoperatively
Osstell enables precise and objective monitoring of osseointegration and implant stability through non-invasive measurements. A cable-connected probe requires a smart peg to be securely attached to the implant. When using the device, it should be held at a right angle to the implant, with a maximum deviation of 45 degrees and a distance of 0.6-2.5 mm from the test surface. The implant stability is measured using the ISQ scale, ranging from 1 to 100, where values above 70 indicate strong stability, 60-69 indicate medium stability, and lower values suggest lower stability. Measurements are taken immediately postoperatively and reassessed after 6 months for final stability confirmation.
Baseline, and 6 months postoperatively
Bone density
Time Frame: Baseline, 3 and 6 months postoperatively
Direct paralleling digital periapical radiographs were obtained using the KaVo Scan eXam™ One system and the Rinn extension cone paralleling device. The KaVo system employs a thin, flexible, wireless phosphorescent imaging plate, and the imaging plate size 2 has a specific active surface area and resolution. A long cone was attached to the x-ray tube, and fixed exposure parameters were applied throughout the study. Radiographic assessments occurred immediately post-operative and after 3 and 6 months. Image analysis utilized IDRISI Kilimanjaro software for restoration, enhancement, and densitometric measurements. This software uniquely monitored changes in bone density in two zones: the osseointegration zone near the implant border and the surrounding bone interface.
Baseline, 3 and 6 months postoperatively

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Visual Analogue Scale of Pain (VAS)
Time Frame: Days 1, 3, and 7 postoperatively
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a widely utilized instrument for quantifying pain intensity in clinical settings. It features a 10-centimeter horizontal line marked at both ends to represent the range of possible pain experiences, where one end is typically labeled "no pain" and the opposite end may carry descriptors such as "unimaginably unspeakable pain." Patients are instructed to indicate their pain level by placing a mark on the line that corresponds to their current pain experience. The measurement in centimeters from the "no pain" endpoint to the patient's designated point provides a straightforward numerical representation of pain severity. This method is favored for its simplicity and its ability to yield quantifiable data, facilitating better pain assessment and management in various medical contexts.
Days 1, 3, and 7 postoperatively
Visual Scale of Edema
Time Frame: Days 1, 3, and 7 postoperatively
Facial edema was assessed using a clinical grading scale based on visual inspection and palpation, classifying it into four severity categories: No Edema (normal contours and symmetry), Low-grade Edema (mild swelling without functional limitations), Intermediate-grade Edema (moderate swelling with visible asymmetry and slight discomfort), and High-grade Edema (pronounced swelling with evident asymmetry and significant functional interference).
Days 1, 3, and 7 postoperatively

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Mohamed Said Hamed, Professor, Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry - Suez Canal University
  • Principal Investigator: Shimaa Abdallah Metawea, B.D.S, Dentist at Ministry of Health and Population
  • Study Director: Ahmed Mohamed El Rawdy, Professor, Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry - Suez Canal University
  • Study Director: Ahmed Abd elmohsen Younis, Assistant. Professor, Assistant. Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry - Suez Canal University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

December 10, 2023

Primary Completion (Actual)

May 10, 2025

Study Completion (Actual)

September 10, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 8, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 20, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

January 26, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

January 26, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 20, 2026

Last Verified

October 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 738/2023

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Implant Osseointegration

Clinical Trials on Immediate implant placement

Search Similar Trials