Bone Substitutes Natural Synthetic (BSNS)
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Effectiveness of two bone substitutes, natural and synthetic in preserving the alveolar ridge of single-rooted teeth: a pilot single-blind, parallel randomised controlled trial
IRAS ID
316275
Contact name
Ihtesham Rehman
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Central Lancashire
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 11 months, 30 days
Research summary
After a tooth is extracted, the bone supporting and surrounding the tooth can considerably shrink, causing difficulties for future treatment (dentures or dental implants). Bone preservation is vital to limit the reduction of bone volume after an extraction. Bone substitutes can be used to pack the extraction socket to preserve the space; cow bone is the most commonly used. This study evaluates a synthetic bone substitute – bioactive glass (BAG) – to preserve the bone after tooth extraction.
Synthetic alternatives to cow bone are already available on the market, but their properties are not as good as traditional cow bone. They are resorbed much more quickly, and in the long term, they fail to maintain the shape and volume of the bone in the extraction socket. BAG has similar long-term preservation features as cow bone but also the potential to surpass cow bone because of its unique antibacterial activity.
The study will be conducted at the University of Central Lancashire, Imperial College London and dental clinics in England. We will recruit 34 patients who require tooth extractions and divide them into two equal groups: group A will receive BAG, and group B the natural bone. For both groups, the bone substitute will be inserted immediately after an extraction. All patients will be reviewed after 2 weeks to remove the suture, and at 24 weeks, during which the researcher will take a scan or mould, a photograph, a small biopsy sample of the area where the bone substitute was placed. Measurements obtained at 24 weeks will evaluate the effectiveness and differences between natural and synthetic bone substitutes in preserving the bone. The benefit of this study lies in the possibility of having a synthetic and antibacterial alternative to a naturally derived bone substitute. The results will inform the design of a full randomised controlled trial.REC name
London - Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
23/LO/0370
Date of REC Opinion
6 Jun 2023
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion