Tooth-Saving surgery vs. implants: which is better for bad molars?

NCT ID NCT07608497

Not yet recruiting Disease control Sponsor: Ain Shams University Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

First seen Jun 25, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026 · Updated 2 times

Summary

This study compares two treatments for severely damaged upper molars: root amputation (removing only the damaged root and keeping the rest of the tooth) versus replacing the whole tooth with a dental implant. Researchers will track pain, bone healing, and implant stability over 12 months in 28 patients. The goal is to help dentists choose the best option for saving teeth.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance: root amputation (surgery) and dental implant
What this could lead to: If successful, this could show that root amputation is a good alternative to implants for saving damaged upper molars, helping more people keep their natural teeth.
What could go wrong: This is a small, early study with only 28 participants, so results may not apply to everyone. Both procedures have risks like infection or failure, and the study hasn't started yet.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for ROOT CARIES are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

root caries

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

ROOT CARIES

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.