Completely Edentulous MaxillaNCT07846475
ALVEOLAR RIDGE SPLIT FOR FULL-ARCH MAXILLA
An observational study of Completely Edentulous Maxilla and Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Deficiency, run by Karadeniz Technical University.
Trial summary
This retrospective study evaluated the use of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique in patients with a completely edentulous upper jaw who received implant-supported fixed prostheses. The ARS technique is used when the jawbone is too narrow to allow conventional implant placement. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Completely Edentulous Maxilla, Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Deficiency
- What is being tested?
- Conventional Dental Implant Placement
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 47 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2012to 1 Feb 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population consisted of patients treated for completely edentulous maxillae with implant-supported fixed prostheses at the Departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Prosthodontics, Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Dentistry, Trabzon, Türkiye, between January 2012 and June 2022. Patients had either insufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width requiring alveolar ridge splitting or sufficient ridge width allowing conventional implant placement.
Who may be able to join
- Completely edentulous maxilla requiring implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation.
- Horizontal augmentation of the completely edentulous maxilla using the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique in patients with insufficient ridge width (<5 mm), or conventional implant placement in patients with sufficient alveolar ridge width (≥5 mm).
- Dental implants placed at the treated maxillary sites.
- Rehabilitation with a fixed implant-supported prosthesis.
- A minimum follow-up period of 1 year.
Who cannot join
- Previous augmentation procedures or implant surgery in the maxilla.
- Serious systemic diseases, including diabetes mellitus or osteoporosis.
- Severe parafunctional habits.
- Smoking addiction.
- Pathological conditions affecting the oral soft or hard tissues.
About this study
Official title: IS THE ALVEOLAR RIDGE SPLIT TECHNIQUE A SAFE PROCEDURE IN THE NARROW RIDGE OF THE MAXILLA FOR FULL-ARCH REHABILITATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
This retrospective study evaluated the use of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique in patients with a completely edentulous upper jaw who received implant-supported fixed prostheses.
The ARS technique is used when the jawbone is too narrow to allow conventional implant placement. In this study, patients with insufficient maxillary ridge width underwent one-stage ARS with simultaneous implant placement, while patients with adequate ridge width received conventional implant placement without ridge splitting.
Read more
The study compared the two treatment approaches in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss around the implants, and implant success, including biological and prosthetic complications.
A total of 47 patients with 332 dental implants were evaluated. The overall implant survival rate was 99.2%, and no significant difference was observed between the ARS and conventional implant groups. Marginal bone loss and implant success rates were also similar between the groups.
The findings suggest that the alveolar ridge split technique may be a suitable option for implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation in carefully selected patients with a completely edentulous maxilla and insufficient alveolar ridge width.
Read the detailed description
This retrospective cohort study evaluated the clinical outcomes of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique used for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation in patients with completely edentulous maxillae and insufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width.
Patients were divided into two groups according to the available alveolar ridge width and the surgical technique used. Group 1 consisted of patients with a maxillary alveolar ridge width of less than 5 mm who underwent one-stage alveolar ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement. Group 2 consisted of patients with an alveolar ridge width of 5 mm or greater who underwent conventional implant placement without an alveolar ridge split procedure. All patients subsequently received implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation.
The primary outcome measure was implant survival, defined according to whether the implant remained in place during the follow-up period or had been removed. Secondary outcome measures included marginal bone loss and implant success. Implant success was evaluated according to the presence or absence of biological and prosthetic complications during follow-up.
Clinical and radiographic records were retrospectively reviewed. Marginal bone loss was assessed using radiographic measurements around the implants. Demographic and treatment-related variables were also evaluated.
A total of 47 patients with 332 implants were included in the study. The overall implant survival rate was 99.2%, and there was no statistically significant difference in implant survival between the ARS and conventional implant groups. Although marginal bone loss was slightly greater in the ARS group, this difference was not statistically significant. The overall implant success rate was 91.5%, with comparable success rates between the two groups. In both groups, longer follow-up duration was significantly associated with greater marginal bone loss.
The study was designed to determine whether one-stage alveolar ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement provides clinical outcomes comparable to conventional implant placement in completely edentulous maxillae. The findings suggest that the ARS technique may provide predictable outcomes in appropriately selected patients with insufficient horizontal maxillary ridge width.
- Being tested
- Conventional Dental Implant Placement
- Keywords
- Alveolar Ridge Split, Dental Implants, Completely Edentulous Maxilla, Narrow Alveolar Ridge, Full-Arch Rehabilitation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Conventional Dental Implant PlacementProcedure or surgery
Dental implants were placed using conventional surgical procedures without an alveolar ridge split procedure because the available maxillary ridge width was sufficient for implant placement.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group/Cohort 1 | Group Description:
Patients with completely edentulous maxillae and insufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width (<5 mm) who underwent one-stage alveolar ridge split (ARS) with simultaneous dental implant placement, followed by implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation.
Intervention/Exposure:
Alveolar Ridge Split Technique
Intervention Description:
One-stage alveolar ridge splitting was performed to increase the horizontal width of the maxillary alveolar ridge, followed by simultaneous placement of dental implants. Receives: Procedure: Conventional Dental Implant Placement | |
| Group/Cohort 2 | Group Title:
Non-ARS Group
Group Description:
Patients with completely edentulous maxillae and sufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width (≥5 mm) who underwent conventional dental implant placement without alveolar ridge splitting, followed by implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation.
Intervention/Exposure:
Conventional Dental Implant Placement
Intervention Description:
Dental implants were placed using conventional surgical procedures without an alveolar ridge split procedure because the available maxillary ridge width was sufficient for implant placement. Receives: Procedure: Conventional Dental Implant Placement |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Implant Survival
Implant survival was defined as the presence of the dental implant in the mouth during the follow-up period. Implant failure was recorded when an implant had been removed or lost. Implant survival was assessed using clinical follow-up records and was compared between the ARS and Non-ARS groups.
Measured: From implant placement to the last available follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months.
Secondary outcomes (2)
Marginal Bone Loss
Marginal bone loss was assessed radiographically by measuring the distance between the implant reference point at the implant neck and the marginal bone level at the mesial and distal aspects of each implant. Mesial and distal measurements were averaged for analysis.
Measured: From implant placement to the last available radiographic follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months.
Implant Success
Implant success was assessed according to the absence of biological or prosthetic complications during follow-up. An implant was classified as successful when no biological or prosthetic complications were recorded and as unsuccessful when one or more complications occurred.
Measured: From implant placement to the last available clinical follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Sep 2026
- Study start1 Jan 2012
- Primary completion1 Feb 2025
- Study completion1 Feb 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Completely Edentulous MaxillaStudies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 47 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Karadeniz Technical University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Efe Sivrikaya, Karadeniz Technical University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07846475
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2024/29
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 23 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 29 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data will not be made publicly available due to patient confidentiality and ethical considerations related to retrospective clinical records. De-identified data may be considered for sharing upon reasonable request, subject to institutional and ethical approval.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- IS THE ALVEOLAR RIDGE SPLIT TECHNIQUE A SAFE PROCEDURE IN THE NARROW RIDGE OF THE MAXILLA FOR FULL-ARCH REHABILITATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07846475
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2024/29
- Keywords
- Alveolar Ridge Split, Dental Implants, Completely Edentulous Maxilla, Narrow Alveolar Ridge, Full-Arch Rehabilitation
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 47 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Karadeniz Technical UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2012 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Feb 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Sep 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 retrospective study evaluated the use of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique in patients with a completely edentulous upper jaw who received implant-supported fixed prostheses.
The ARS technique is used when the jawbone is too narrow to allow conventional implant placement. In this study, patients with insufficient maxillary ridge width underwent one-stage ARS with simultaneous implant placement, while patients with adequate ridge width received conventional implant placement without ridge splitting.
The study compared the two treatment approaches in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss around the implants, and implant success, including biological and prosthetic complications.
A total of 47 patients with 332 dental implants were evaluated. The overall implant survival rate was 99.2%, and no significant difference was observed between the ARS and conventional implant groups. Marginal bone loss and implant success rates were also similar between the groups.
The findings suggest that the alveolar ridge split technique may be a suitable option for implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation in carefully selected patients with a completely edentulous maxilla and insufficient alveolar ridge width.
Detailed description
This retrospective cohort study evaluated the clinical outcomes of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique used for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation in patients with completely edentulous maxillae and insufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width.
Patients were divided into two groups according to the available alveolar ridge width and the surgical technique used. Group 1 consisted of patients with a maxillary alveolar ridge width of less than 5 mm who underwent one-stage alveolar ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement. Group 2 consisted of patients with an alveolar ridge width of 5 mm or greater who underwent conventional implant placement without an alveolar ridge split procedure. All patients subsequently received implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation.
The primary outcome measure was implant survival, defined according to whether the implant remained in place during the follow-up period or had been removed. Secondary outcome measures included marginal bone loss and implant success. Implant success was evaluated according to the presence or absence of biological and prosthetic complications during follow-up.
Clinical and radiographic records were retrospectively reviewed. Marginal bone loss was assessed using radiographic measurements around the implants. Demographic and treatment-related variables were also evaluated.
A total of 47 patients with 332 implants were included in the study. The overall implant survival rate was 99.2%, and there was no statistically significant difference in implant survival between the ARS and conventional implant groups. Although marginal bone loss was slightly greater in the ARS group, this difference was not statistically significant. The overall implant success rate was 91.5%, with comparable success rates between the two groups. In both groups, longer follow-up duration was significantly associated with greater marginal bone loss.
The study was designed to determine whether one-stage alveolar ridge splitting with simultaneous implant placement provides clinical outcomes comparable to conventional implant placement in completely edentulous maxillae. The findings suggest that the ARS technique may provide predictable outcomes in appropriately selected patients with insufficient horizontal maxillary ridge width.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group/Cohort 1 | – | Procedure: Conventional Dental Implant PlacementGroup Description: Patients with completely edentulous maxillae and insufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width (<5 mm) who underwent one-stage alveolar ridge split (ARS) with simultaneous dental implant placement, followed by implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation. Intervention/Exposure: Alveolar Ridge Split Technique Intervention Description: One-stage alveolar ridge splitting was performed to increase the horizontal width of the maxillary alveolar ridge, followed by simultaneous placement of dental implants. |
| Group/Cohort 2 | – | Procedure: Conventional Dental Implant PlacementGroup Title: Non-ARS Group Group Description: Patients with completely edentulous maxillae and sufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width (≥5 mm) who underwent conventional dental implant placement without alveolar ridge splitting, followed by implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation. Intervention/Exposure: Conventional Dental Implant Placement Intervention Description: Dental implants were placed using conventional surgical procedures without an alveolar ridge split procedure because the available maxillary ridge width was sufficient for implant placement. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population consisted of patients treated for completely edentulous maxillae with implant-supported fixed prostheses at the Departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Prosthodontics, Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Dentistry, Trabzon, Türkiye, between January 2012 and June 2022. Patients had either insufficient horizontal alveolar ridge width requiring alveolar ridge splitting or sufficient ridge width allowing conventional implant placement.
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Completely edentulous maxilla requiring implant-supported fixed prosthetic rehabilitation.
- Horizontal augmentation of the completely edentulous maxilla using the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique in patients with insufficient ridge width (<5 mm), or conventional implant placement in patients with sufficient alveolar ridge width (≥5 mm).
- Dental implants placed at the treated maxillary sites.
- Rehabilitation with a fixed implant-supported prosthesis.
- A minimum follow-up period of 1 year.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Previous augmentation procedures or implant surgery in the maxilla.
- Serious systemic diseases, including diabetes mellitus or osteoporosis.
- Severe parafunctional habits.
- Smoking addiction.
- Pathological conditions affecting the oral soft or hard tissues.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional Dental Implant PlacementDental implants were placed using conventional surgical procedures without an alveolar ridge split procedure because the available maxillary ridge width was sufficient for implant placement. | Procedure or surgery | Group/Cohort 1, Group/Cohort 2 |
Primary outcome
Implant Survival
Time frame: From implant placement to the last available follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months.
Implant survival was defined as the presence of the dental implant in the mouth during the follow-up period. Implant failure was recorded when an implant had been removed or lost. Implant survival was assessed using clinical follow-up records and was compared between the ARS and Non-ARS groups.
2 secondary outcomes
Marginal Bone Loss
Time frame: From implant placement to the last available radiographic follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months.
Implant Success
Time frame: From implant placement to the last available clinical follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months.
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 29 Sep 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data will not be made publicly available due to patient confidentiality and ethical considerations related to retrospective clinical records. De-identified data may be considered for sharing upon reasonable request, subject to institutional and ethical approval.
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.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Completely Edentulous Maxilla and Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Deficiency, run by Karadeniz Technical University.
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 5 inclusion and 5 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 29 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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 Survival (time frame: From implant placement to the last available follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 29 Sep 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.