NCT07834645

Brief Summary

This study compared two membrane materials: 1. polycaprolactone (PCL) and 2. Extracellular matrix collagen membrane (ECM) as alternative. This is to see how well they prevent bone and gum damage after lower wisdom tooth removal. In this split-mouth trial, participants had both lower wisdom teeth removed, with one socket receiving PCL membrane and the other receiving ECM membrane after socket filled with EthOss (an alloplastic bone graft). Over a 24-week follow-up period, researchers tracked patient clinically on their comfort, gum healing, and new bone growth using X-rays.

Trial Health

75
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
18

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for phase_4

Timeline
12mo left

Started May 2025

Typical duration for phase_4

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
active not recruiting

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Progress59%
May 2025Sep 2027

Study Start

First participant enrolled

May 2, 2025

Completed
1.4 years until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

September 11, 2026

Completed
11 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

September 22, 2026

Completed
3 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

December 31, 2026

Expected
9 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

September 30, 2027

Last Updated

September 22, 2026

Status Verified

September 1, 2026

Enrollment Period

1.7 years

First QC Date

September 11, 2026

Last Update Submit

September 16, 2026

Conditions

Keywords

PCL membraneECM membranesocket preservation

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

  • Periodontal health assessment on lower second molar (1)

    1\. Modified Plaque Score (from Score 0: No plaque present. Score 1: No visible plaque, but a periodontal probe skimmed across the tooth surface reveals soft plaque biofilm on the tip. Score 2: Visible plaque that can be easily seen with the naked eye without using a probe., modified bleeding score and gingival recession, periodontal pocketing depth)-- the lower the score, the better the periodontal health.

    baseline on day of surgery, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after surgery

  • Periodontal health assessment on lower second molar (2)

    Modified Bleeding Score (Score 0: No bleeding observed after probing. Score 1: Bleeding is present.)-- the lower the score, the better the periodontal health

    baseline on day of surgery, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after surgery

  • Periodontal health assessment on lower second molar (3)

    Periodontal Pocketing Depth (PPD) (measurement in milimeter, 1-3mm indicate healthy sulcus while \>5mm indicate periodontal disesase)-- the lower the score, the better the periodontal health.

    baseline on day of surgery, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after surgery

  • Periodontal health assessment on lower second molar (4)

    Gingival Recession- measurement in mm for gingival margin below the cementoenamel junction. - the lower the score, the better the periodontal health.

    baseline on day of surgery, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after surgery

  • Periodontal health assessment on lower second molar (5)

    The healing index of Landry (Grade 1 poor to Grade 5 excellent)

    baseline on day of surgery, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after surgery

Secondary Outcomes (2)

  • The width of keratinized tissue

    baseline on day of surgery, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after surgery

  • Bone gain at distal of lower second molar

    radiograph taken prior to surgery and 24 weeks after surgery

Study Arms (2)

PCL membrane

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

This is a split-mouth, randomized, within-subject clinical trial using a crossover assignment model. Each participant serves as their own control, receiving both Intervention 1. PCL membrane and Intervention 2. ECM collagen membrane after socket filled with Ethoss alloplast material simultaneously on either sides of the lower third molar

Combination Product: Extracellular matrix collagen (ECM) membrane

ECM collagen membrane

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

This is a split-mouth, randomized, within-subject clinical trial using a crossover assignment model. Each participant serves as their own control, receiving both Intervention 1. PCL membrane and Intervention 2. ECM collagen membrane after socket filled with Ethoss alloplast material simultaneously on either sides of the lower third molar

Combination Product: polycarprolactone membrane (PCL membrane)

Interventions

This is a split-mouth, randomized, within-subject clinical trial using a crossover assignment model. Each participant serves as their own control, receiving both Intervention 1. PCL membrane and Intervention 2.ECM collagen membrane simultaneously on opposite sides of the lower third molar after socket filled up with alloplast.

ECM collagen membrane

This is a split-mouth, randomized, within-subject clinical trial using a crossover assignment model. Each participant serves as their own control, receiving both Intervention 1. PCL membrane and Intervention 2.ECM collagen membrane simultaneously on opposite sides of the lower third molar after socket filled up with alloplast.

Also known as: ECM membrane
PCL membrane

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 35 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

  • Patient who requires surgical removal of bilateral impacted M3.
  • Patient with impacted bilateral M3 which are sound.
  • Impacted bilateral M3 classified as Class I or II with Level A or B according to Pell and Gregory's classification.
  • Presence of disease-free mandibular second molar (M2) adjacent to the M3 to be extracted
  • Patient aged 18 to 35 years old who are medically fit

You may not qualify if:

  • Impacted M3 associated with:
  • Fracture of angle of mandible.
  • Radiological evidence of cyst or tumour.
  • Incomplete root formation.
  • Acute pulpitis or severe pericoronitis that is not under controlled.
  • Gross dental caries.
  • Retained roots of mandibular third molar with history of removal or coronectomy of unerupted/impacted M3.
  • Patients with periodontal disease
  • Patients with absence of lower second molars.
  • Medically compromised patients
  • Pregnant women.
  • Patient on oral contraceptives.
  • Current or previous bisphosphonate therapy or history of radiotherapy to the jaws.
  • Active smokers

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya

Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia

Location

Related Publications (1)

  • Aimetti, M., Romano, F., Pigella, E., Pranzini, F., & Debernaerdi, C. (2005). Treatment of Wide, Shallow, and Predominantly 1-Wall Intrabony Defects With a Bioabsorbable Membrane: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Journal of Periodontology, 76(8), 1354-1361. Bohner, M., Santoni, B. L. G., & Dobelin, N. (2020). Beta-tricalcium phosphate for bone substitution: Synthesis and properties. Acta Biomater, 113, 23-41. Canullo, L., Rossi-Fedele, G., Camodeca, F., Menini, M., & Pesce, P. (2021). A Pilot Retrospective Study on the Effect of Bone Grafting after Wisdom Teeth Extraction. Materials (Basel), 14(11https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14112844). Chen, G., Sato, T., Ohgushi, H., Ushida, T., Tateishi, T., & Tanaka, J. (2005). Culturing of skin fibroblasts in a thin PLGA-collagen hybrid mesh. Biomaterials, 26(15), 2559-2566. De Angelis, N., Pesce, P., Poedjiastoeti, W., Suwandi, T., Tjandrawinata, R., Bagnasco, F., & Menini, M. (2024). 3D-Printable Biopolymers for Socket Preservation Technique: Soft Tissues Response: A Pilot Randomised Clinical Study. Dent J (Basel), 12(10). Retrieved Oct 7, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39452449 Dodson, T. B. (2004). Management of Mandibular Third Molar Extraction Sites to Prevent Periodontal Defects. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 62(10), 1213-1224. Fairbairn, P., Kilner, S., O'Hooley, D., Fish, A., & Kurtzman, G. M. (2023). Sinus Augmentation for Implant Placement Utilizing a Novel Synthetic Graft Material with Delayed Immediate Socket Grafting: A 2-Year Case Study. J. Clin. Med, 12(1). Goh, B. T., Teh, L. Y., Tan, D. B., Zhang, Z., & Teoh, S. H. (2015). Novel 3D polycaprolactone scaffold for ridge preservation--a pilot randomised controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res, 26(3), 271-277. Retrieved Mar, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25263527 Jambhekar, S., Kernen, F., & Bidra, A. S. (2015). Clinical and histologic outcomes of socket grafting after flapless tooth extraction:

    BACKGROUND

Study Officials

  • Wei Cheong Ngeow, PhD

    Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia

    STUDY DIRECTOR
  • Rou Enn Ng, BDS

    Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
phase 4
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
TRIPLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
SINGLE GROUP
Model Details: This is a split mouth study, within a single patient with PCL membrane and ECM collagen membrane placed on each side of lower wisdom tooth socket after filled with allograft (Ethoss).
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Associate Professor Dr

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

September 11, 2026

First Posted

September 22, 2026

Study Start

May 2, 2025

Primary Completion (Estimated)

December 31, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

September 30, 2027

Last Updated

September 22, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-09

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared to protect participant confidentiality and privacy. The informed consent approved by the Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board (IRB) did not include explicit authorization from participants for secondary data sharing or broad external repository deposition. Furthermore, due to the granular nature of the clinical data collected, full de-identification cannot be guaranteed without risk of re-identification. Aggregate data, summary statistics, and primary outcomes will instead be made available through peer-reviewed publications.

Locations