Horizontal Alveolar Ridge ResorptionNCT07589426
Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in Maxillary Esthetic Zone Using Bovine Bone Graft Versus Extended Sticky Bone With Simultaneous Implant Placement
A study testing oral surgery in people with Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Resorption, run by Mansoura University at 2 sites in Egypt.
Trial summary
This research is designed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bovine bone graft (Medpark) versus extended sticky bone used for horizontal augmentation of atrophied esthetic area of maxillary ridge associated with simultaneous implant placement. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 45 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Resorption
- What is being tested?
- oral surgery
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 16 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesEgypt
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2025to 1 May 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 45 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient aged 18-45 years, Cooperative patient with high motivation and acceptable oral hygiene, maxillary narrow ridge in the esthetic zone that needed horizontal bone augmentation. (Class I Siebert classification) (24),No deep undercut at the ridge in the buccal aspect, The presence of enough keratinized gingiva(≥3mm).(25), sufficient inter-arch space to accommodate the future prosthesis. (26) , and Patients able to comply with the required recall visits.
Who cannot join
- Local and / or systemic conditions that contraindicate the placement of dental implant or surgery, smokers, pregnancy and parafunctional habits, including bruxism and clenching.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
About this study
This research is designed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bovine bone graft (Medpark) versus extended sticky bone used for horizontal augmentation of atrophied esthetic area of maxillary ridge associated with simultaneous implant placement.
Read the detailed description
Patient selection This study will involve sixteen implants inserted in patients with missing upper tooth / teeth in the esthetic zone accompanied by horizontal alveolar ridge resorption, seeking future tooth replacement. The patients will be selected from the Outpatient Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patient aged 18-45 years.
- Cooperative patient with high motivation and acceptable oral hygiene.
- Maxillary narrow ridge in the esthetic zone that needed horizontal bone augmentation. (Class I Siebert classification). (22)
- No deep undercut at the ridge in the buccal aspect.
- The presence of enough keratinized gingiva(≥3mm).(23)
- Sufficient inter-arch space to accommodate the future prosthesis. (24)
- Patients able to comply with the required recall visits.
Exclusion criteria:
- Local and / or systemic conditions that contraindicate the placement of dental implant or surgery
- Smokers
- Pregnancy.
- Parafunctional habits, including bruxism and clenching.
- Conditions
- Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Resorption
- Being tested
- oral surgery
- Keywords
- : Medpark; Extended sticky bone; Horizontal ridge augmentation; soft tissue healing; implant stability; bone volume.
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
oral surgeryProcedure or surgery
The oral cavity was prepared using 0.12% chlorhexidine mouth rinse for one minute. Local anesthesia was administered using articaine 4% with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected using a crestal horizontal incision with vertical releasing incisions to expose the surgical site.
Osteotomy preparation was performed using a pilot drill to the planned depth at 800-850 rpm under copious sterile saline irrigation, followed by sequential drilling according to the manufacturer's protocol until the final implant size was achieved. The sterile implant was then inserted using a ratchet wrench. Implant stability was immediately assessed using resonance frequency analysis (Osstell device), and cover screws were subsequently placed.
For group I, Medpark bone graft was prepared by hydration with sterile saline, gentle mixing, and allowed to partially set before application to the defect site. For group II, extended sticky bone (ESB) was prepared b
oral surgeryProcedure or surgery
The oral cavity was prepared using 0.12% chlorhexidine mouth rinse for one minute. Local anesthesia was administered using articaine 4% with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected using a crestal horizontal incision with vertical releasing incisions to expose the surgical site.
Osteotomy preparation was performed using a pilot drill to the planned depth at 800-850 rpm under copious sterile saline irrigation, followed by sequential drilling according to the manufacturer's protocol until the final implant size was achieved. The sterile implant was then inserted using a ratchet wrench. (Fig.1B \& Fig.2B) Implant stability was immediately assessed using resonance frequency analysis (Osstell device), and cover screws were subsequently placed.
For group I, Medpark bone graft was prepared by hydration with sterile saline, gentle mixing, and allowed to partially set before application to the defect site. For group II, extended sticky bone (ESB) was prepared b
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using Medpark | Experimental | For group I, Medpark bone graft was prepared by hydration with sterile saline, gentle mixing, and allowed to partially set before application to the defect site. For group II, extended sticky bone (ESB) was prepared by centrifugation of autologous blood followed by preparation of ALB-PRF and mixing with bone particulates (50:50 allograft: xenograft) to obtain the final graft materia Receives: Procedure: oral surgery |
| Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using extended | Experimental | Not described Receives: Procedure: oral surgery |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) Values Assessed by Resonance Frequency Analysis
Implant stability was assessed using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) with the Osstell device and expressed as Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values. ISQ scores range from 1 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater implant stability and osseointegration.
High stability: ISQ > 70 Medium stability: ISQ 60-69 Low stability: ISQ < 60
Measurements were recorded immediately after implant placement and at the 6-month follow-up.
Measured: Baseline and 6 months after implant placement
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 May 2026
- Study start1 Nov 2025
- Primary completion1 Apr 2026
- Study completion1 May 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Horizontal Alveolar Ridge ResorptionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mansoura University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07589426
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Ms.25.04.21
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 3 May 2026
- Last updated
- 15 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Attia AAMM, Abass MA, Salem MT, Said Ahmed WM. Horizontal ridge augmentation in maxillary esthetic zone using bovine bone graft versus extended sticky bone with simultaneous implant placement: a randomized clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2026 Sep 9;26(1):1859. doi: 10.1186/s12903-026-09431-y.
PubMed 42806343
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in Maxillary Esthetic Zone Using Bovine Bone Graft Versus Extended Sticky Bone With Simultaneous Implant Placement
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07589426
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Ms.25.04.21
- Conditions
- Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Resorption
- Keywords
- : Medpark; Extended sticky bone; Horizontal ridge augmentation; soft tissue healing; implant stability; bone volume.
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mansoura UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 May 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 15 May 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This research is designed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bovine bone graft (Medpark) versus extended sticky bone used for horizontal augmentation of atrophied esthetic area of maxillary ridge associated with simultaneous implant placement.
Detailed description
Patient selection This study will involve sixteen implants inserted in patients with missing upper tooth / teeth in the esthetic zone accompanied by horizontal alveolar ridge resorption, seeking future tooth replacement. The patients will be selected from the Outpatient Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patient aged 18-45 years.
- Cooperative patient with high motivation and acceptable oral hygiene.
- Maxillary narrow ridge in the esthetic zone that needed horizontal bone augmentation. (Class I Siebert classification). (22)
- No deep undercut at the ridge in the buccal aspect.
- The presence of enough keratinized gingiva(≥3mm).(23)
- Sufficient inter-arch space to accommodate the future prosthesis. (24)
- Patients able to comply with the required recall visits.
Exclusion criteria:
- Local and / or systemic conditions that contraindicate the placement of dental implant or surgery
- Smokers
- Pregnancy.
- Parafunctional habits, including bruxism and clenching.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using Medpark | Experimental | Procedure: oral surgeryFor group I, Medpark bone graft was prepared by hydration with sterile saline, gentle mixing, and allowed to partially set before application to the defect site. For group II, extended sticky bone (ESB) was prepared by centrifugation of autologous blood followed by preparation of ALB-PRF and mixing with bone particulates (50:50 allograft: xenograft) to obtain the final graft materia |
| Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using extended | Experimental | Procedure: oral surgery |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 45 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patient aged 18-45 years, Cooperative patient with high motivation and acceptable oral hygiene, maxillary narrow ridge in the esthetic zone that needed horizontal bone augmentation. (Class I Siebert classification) (24),No deep undercut at the ridge in the buccal aspect, The presence of enough keratinized gingiva(≥3mm).(25), sufficient inter-arch space to accommodate the future prosthesis. (26) , and Patients able to comply with the required recall visits.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Local and / or systemic conditions that contraindicate the placement of dental implant or surgery, smokers, pregnancy and parafunctional habits, including bruxism and clenching.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| oral surgeryThe oral cavity was prepared using 0.12% chlorhexidine mouth rinse for one minute. Local anesthesia was administered using articaine 4% with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected using a crestal horizontal incision with vertical releasing incisions to expose the surgical site. Osteotomy preparation was performed using a pilot drill to the planned depth at 800-850 rpm under copious sterile saline irrigation, followed by sequential drilling according to the manufacturer's protocol until the final implant size was achieved. The sterile implant was then inserted using a ratchet wrench. Implant stability was immediately assessed using resonance frequency analysis (Osstell device), and cover screws were subsequently placed. For group I, Medpark bone graft was prepared by hydration with sterile saline, gentle mixing, and allowed to partially set before application to the defect site. For group II, extended sticky bone (ESB) was prepared b | Procedure or surgery | Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using Medpark, Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using extended |
| oral surgeryThe oral cavity was prepared using 0.12% chlorhexidine mouth rinse for one minute. Local anesthesia was administered using articaine 4% with 1:100,000 epinephrine. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected using a crestal horizontal incision with vertical releasing incisions to expose the surgical site. Osteotomy preparation was performed using a pilot drill to the planned depth at 800-850 rpm under copious sterile saline irrigation, followed by sequential drilling according to the manufacturer's protocol until the final implant size was achieved. The sterile implant was then inserted using a ratchet wrench. (Fig.1B \& Fig.2B) Implant stability was immediately assessed using resonance frequency analysis (Osstell device), and cover screws were subsequently placed. For group I, Medpark bone graft was prepared by hydration with sterile saline, gentle mixing, and allowed to partially set before application to the defect site. For group II, extended sticky bone (ESB) was prepared b | Procedure or surgery | Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using Medpark, Eight dental implants were inserted simultaneously with horizontal ridge augmentation using extended |
Primary outcome
Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) Values Assessed by Resonance Frequency Analysis
Time frame: Baseline and 6 months after implant placement
Implant stability was assessed using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) with the Osstell device and expressed as Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values. ISQ scores range from 1 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater implant stability and osseointegration. High stability: ISQ > 70 Medium stability: ISQ 60-69 Low stability: ISQ < 60 Measurements were recorded immediately after implant placement and at the 6-month follow-up.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 May 2026.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42806343Attia AAMM, Abass MA, Salem MT, Said Ahmed WM. Horizontal ridge augmentation in maxillary esthetic zone using bovine bone graft versus extended sticky bone with simultaneous implant placement: a randomized clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2026 Sep 9;26(1):1859. doi: 10.1186/s12903-026-09431-y.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Resorption
Recruiting
Histological and Histomorphometric Assessment With Inflammatory Profile Analysis of Bone Tissue After Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using Customized Porous Zirconia Shell
Alveolar Bone Loss, Alveolar Ridge Deficiency
Not yet recruiting
Novel Synthetic Membrane for Horizontal Bone Augmentation: A Case Series
Alveolar Ridge Deficiency, Alveolar Bone Loss
Recruiting
Outcomes of Ridge Splitting Versus Sausage Technique
Bone Loss, Alveolar
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing oral surgery in people with Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Resorption, run by Mansoura University at 2 sites in Egypt.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) Values Assessed by Resonance Frequency Analysis (time frame: Baseline and 6 months after implant placement). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07589426, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 May 2026.