AI-guided versus freehand ridge split and expansion using an electromagnetic mallet

Comparative Study Between Artificial Intelligence-Assisted/Computer-Guided Versus Conventional Ridge Splitting Utilizing Electromagnetic Mallet for Reconstruction of Horizontal Ridge Defects: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

This test will see if an AI-assisted digital workflow with an electromagnetic mallet rebuilds narrow upper front jaw bone better than the conventional freehand approach for adults needing dental implants.

Quick facts

• Phase: NA
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 22 (estimated)
• Ages: 18 Years to 40 Years
• Sex: All
• Sponsor: Kafrelsheikh University (other)
• Locations: 1 site (Kafr ash Shaykh)
• Trial ID: NCT07256730 on ClinicalTrials.gov

What this trial studies

Adults with horizontal width loss in the maxillary aesthetic zone and at least 3 mm of residual bone will be randomly assigned to receive ridge-splitting and expansion with either an AI-guided digital workflow using an electromagnetic mallet or a conventional freehand technique. Procedures aim for simultaneous implant placement after a minimum three-month post-extraction healing period. Outcomes will focus on achieved bone width, implant positioning, and perioperative complications and healing. Participants are screened for general and oral health and exclude conditions such as vertical defects, unfavorable labial undercuts, thick cortical bone without cancellous bone, uncontrolled systemic disease, smoking, or pregnancy.

Who should consider this trial

Good fit: Adults aged 18–40 with inadequate width in the maxillary anterior ridge, good general and oral health, at least three months since extraction, and a minimum bone width of 3 mm are ideal candidates.

Not a fit: Patients with vertical ridge defects, labial/buccal undercuts, thick cortical bone lacking cancellous bone, uncontrolled systemic disease, smokers, pregnant patients, or those who are noncompliant are unlikely to benefit.

Why it matters

Potential benefit: If successful, this approach could enable more predictable simultaneous implant placement in narrow upper front ridges, reducing the need for staged grafting and shortening treatment time.

How similar studies have performed: Ridge-splitting and expansion with simultaneous implant placement has been reported successfully in prior surgical series, but combining an AI-guided digital workflow with an electromagnetic mallet is a relatively novel approach.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

1. The target population with inadequate bone volume for implant placement due to width insufficiency of maxillary anterior alveolar ridges.
2. Age ranges from 18 to 40 years of both sexes.
3. Absence of any complicating systemic condition that may contraindicate surgical procedures and implant placement.
4. Adequate oral hygiene.
5. Eligible participants should present good general health and agree to random assignment to any of the two parallel study groups.
6. Participants had a minimum 3-month post-extraction healing period and a horizontal defect in the maxillary esthetic zone with at least a bone width of 3 mm.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Vertical ridge defect.
2. Undercut on the labial/buccal side.
3. Thick cortical bone without cancellous bone inside.
4. Uncontrolled systematic disorders as, diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled periodontal disease, history of head and neck radiotherapy, smokers, pregnancy, noncompliant patients, allergy to the used medications, uncooperative individuals or those unable to attend the study follow-up appointments.

Where this trial is running

Kafr ash Shaykh

• Faculty of Dentistry, Periodontology Department — Kafr ash Shaykh, Egypt (RECRUITING)

Study contacts

• Study coordinator: Asmaa Hamdy Elgarawany, Lecturer

Conditions: Reconstruction of Horizontal Ridge Defects, ridge defects, ridge split, electromagnetic mallet, dental implant