Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 31, 2026
Digital Hybrid Model Preparation for Virtual Planning of Reconstructive Dentoalveolar Surgical Procedures
Published on: August 5, 2021
An open randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate ridge preservation and repair using SocketKAP(™) and
Alaa Abdelhamid1, Mostafa Omran1, Neema Bakhshalian2
1Dental Research Center (DRC) and Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials Research Unit (TEBRU), Qassim College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
Objectives:
The aims of this study were (i) to evaluate the efficacy of ridge preservation and repair procedures involving the application of SocketKAP(™) and SocketKAGE(™) devices following tooth removal and (ii) to evaluate alveolar bone volumetric changes at 6 months post-extraction in intact sockets or those with facial wall dehiscence defects using 3-dimensional pre- and postoperative CBCT data.
Materials And Methods:
Thirty-six patients required 61 teeth extracted. Five cohorts were established: Group A: Intact Socket Negative Control Group B: Intact Socket + SocketKAP(™) Group C: Intact Socket Filled with Anorganic Bovine Bone Mineral (ABBM) + SocketKAP(™) Group D: Facial Dehiscence Socket Negative Control Group E: Facial Dehiscence Socket Filled with ABBM + SocketKAP(™) + SocketKAGE(™) . Preoperative CBCT scans were obtained followed by digital subtraction of the test teeth. At 6 months post-extraction, another CBCT scan was obtained. The pre- and postoperative scans were then superimposed, allowing highly accurate quantitative determination of the 3D volumetric alveolar bone volume changes from baseline through 6 months.
Results:
Significant volumetric bone loss occurred in all sockets, localized mainly in the 0-3 mm zone apical to the ridge crest. For intact sockets, SocketKAP(™) + ABBM treatment led to a statistically significant greater percentage of remaining mineralized tissue volume when compared to negative control group. A significant difference favoring SocketKAP(™) + SocketKAGE(™) + ABBM treatment was observed for sockets with facial dehiscence defects compared to the negative control group.
Conclusions:
SocketKAP(™) , with ABBM, appears effective in limiting post-extraction volumetric bone loss in intact sockets, while SocketKAP(™) + SocketKAGE + ABBM appears effective in limiting post-extraction bone loss in sockets with dehiscence defects.
