Assessment of Bone Gain Following Composite Graft Rehabilitation of Horizontal Maxilla Atrophy With Sausage Technique Utilizing (Pericardial) Collagen Membrane

February 14, 2025 updated by: Manaf Omar Alhabshi, Cairo University

Assessment of Bone Gain Following Composite Graft Rehabilitation of Horizontal Maxilla Atrophy With Sausage Technique Utilizing (Pericardial) Collagen Membrane Versus Periosteal Membrane Harvested From the Iliac Crest A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study designed to assess amount of bone gain following composite graft rehabilitation of horizontal maxilla atrophy with sausage technique utilizing (pericardial) collagen membrane versus Periosteal membrane harvested from the iliac crest in 6 months.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Edentulous Maxillary ridges are a growing challenge worldwide. According to a fact sheet released by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2022. teeth loss can be attributed to many conditions, mainly advanced dental caries, and severe periodontal disease. But pathology trauma and infection are other potential causes. Substantial studies have shown Dental implants as an excellent treatment choice with predictable long-term results.

However, to guarantee the success of implant stability at the time of insertion, a sufficient amount of bone width is robust. As known that bone surrounding extracted teeth resorb in all directions. This leads to horizontal and vertical bone volume loss reaching up to 50% in width reduction which compromises dental implant insertion. Cawood and Howell in 1988 categorized the degrees of edentulous ridge atrophy into six categories, emphasizing category IV atrophies which are known as "knife-edge" ridge, present a serious horizontal defect, making dental implant placement a challenge.

The challenge of bone defects augmentation primarily lies in the insufficient bone volume at the implant site, which can negatively impact the success of dental implants. Severe horizontal bone defects, such as those classified as "knife-edge" ridges, present significant obstacles for effective implant placement. Sausage Technique: Specifically designed for cases with severely thin ridges, this technique utilizes a collagen membrane stabilized with titanium pins to secure the bone graft. This helps prevent the migration or collapse of graft particles, promoting better bone gain and healing. Still some limitation of this technique including possibility of the collagen membrane becoming exposed during the healing process, which can compromise the regenerative outcome. Limited Bone Gain: In some cases, the amount of bone gain achieved may not meet the expectations, particularly in severely atrophic ridges, which can lead to the need for additional augmentation procedures. A study by Fernando V, et al showed that recipient sites augmented with autogenous bone grafts and preserved periosteal membranes maintained an average bucco-lingual width of 8.1 mm after augmentation, which was significantly greater than the baseline width of 3.2 mm. This augmented width was maintained at 98% after an average follow-up of 2.9 years. Another study by Kubota and Shirasuna evaluates the effectiveness of free periosteum in secondary bone grafting for maxillary alveolar clefts.

Results indicate that 97.1% of patients receiving free periosteum achieved significant vertical bone formation, compared to 79.5% in the control group. While the free-periosteum group experienced a higher rate of postoperative wound dehiscence. The rationale of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of autogenous bone and an organic bovine bone-derived mineral (ABBM) for horizontal ridge augmentation using sausage technique utilizing (pericardial) collagen membrane versus Periosteal membrane harvested from the iliac crest. The study aimed to Assess bone gain in insufficient maxillary alveolar ridge width, particularly in patients with knife-edge ridges, to facilitate successful dental implant placement.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

22

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

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

Study Contact

Study Locations

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:

  • Age range (18-60 years)
  • Patients with unilateral or bilateral horizontal atrophy in maxilla with minimum 1 quadrant.
  • No intervention done previously on the donor and host sides.
  • No sex predilection

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Syndromic patients.
  • bone metabolism & systemic diseases.

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: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: pericardial collagen membrane
Sausage Technique: Specifically designed for cases with severely thin ridges, this technique utilizes a collagen membrane stabilized with titanium pins to secure the bone graft. This helps prevent the migration or collapse of graft particles, promoting better bone gain and healing
bone gain following composite graft rehabilitation of horizontal maxilla atrophy with sausage technique utilizing (pericardial) collagen membrane
Active Comparator: periosteal Membrane harvested from anterior iliac bone
The choice of comparators in clinical studies involving guided bone regeneration (GBR) often includes both nonresorbable and resorbable membranes. Resorbable membranes have demonstrated better soft tissue compatibility compared to nonresorbable options, making them a preferred choice in many cases. For instance, studies have shown that using an organic bovine bone-derived mineral (ABBM) in conjunction with a rapidly resorbing natural collagen membrane is effective for horizontal ridge augmentation, as evidenced by positive histologic outcomes.
The choice of comparators in clinical studies involving guided bone regeneration (GBR) often includes both nonresorbable and resorbable membranes. Resorbable membranes have demonstrated better soft tissue compatibility compared to nonresorbable options, making them a preferred choice in many cases. For instance, studies have shown that using an organic bovine bone-derived mineral (ABBM) in conjunction with a rapidly resorbing natural collagen membrane is effective for horizontal ridge augmentation, as evidenced by positive histologic outcomes.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Horizontal bone gain
Time Frame: 6 months
Bone caliper intra-operative and at time of implant placement CBCT, preoperative, immediate to assess amount of bone gain postoperative
6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of newly formed bone
Time Frame: 6 months
Bone core biopsy from the augmentation site with Histomorphometric analysis to assess amount of bone gain
6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Manaf O Alhabshi, Msc, Cairo University

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)

February 1, 2025

Primary Completion (Estimated)

August 1, 2025

Study Completion (Estimated)

August 1, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 30, 2025

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 14, 2025

First Posted (Actual)

March 25, 2025

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 25, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 14, 2025

Last Verified

February 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 1-25

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

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.

Subscribe