Working…
COVID-19 is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation.
Get the latest public health information from CDC: https://www.coronavirus.gov.

Get the latest research information from NIH: https://www.nih.gov/coronavirus.
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Submerged vs. Nonsubmerged Single Laser-microgrooved Dental Implants.

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674762
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : September 18, 2018
Last Update Posted : September 18, 2018
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Renzo Guarnieri, University of Roma La Sapienza

Brief Summary:
Aim: to evaluate and compare radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL) and soft tissue parameters around submerged/two-stage and nonsubmerged/one-stage single implants with same tapered body design and surface, same thread design and distance, and same collar surface (laser-microgrooved), after 3 years of loading.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Partially Edentulous Maxilla, Mandible Device: Microgrooved dental implants Not Applicable

Detailed Description:
Materials and methods: 20 submerged/two-stage implants and 20 nonsubmerged/one stage implants were placed randomly with a split mouth design, in 20 partially edentulous patients. Radiographic and clinical examinations were carried out at the implant placement (Baseline, BSL), at the delivery of prosthetic restorations (T0), and at each year of the follow-up period (T1, T2, T3). Plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and gingival recession (REC) were recorded. Radiographic marginal bone levels (MBL) were assessed at the mesial (MI) and distal (DI) aspect of implant sites. In addition, the influence of keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) on MBL was investigated.

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 20 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Sequential Assignment
Intervention Model Description: The cases were randomly divided into two groups as two-stage/submerged, and one-stage/nonsubmerged. Thus, in each patient, the two implants (submerged and nonsubmerged) were placed randomly in the left and right hemi-mandible or in the left and right hemi-maxilla
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: Submerged vs. Nonsubmerged Single Laser-microgrooved Implants. Clinical and Radiographic Results at 3-years of RCT With Split Mouth Design.
Actual Study Start Date : September 14, 2018
Actual Primary Completion Date : September 14, 2018
Actual Study Completion Date : September 14, 2018

Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: dental implants
microgrooved dental implants submerged
Device: Microgrooved dental implants
Dental Implant placement

Experimental: dentale implants
microgrooved dental implants nonsubmerged
Device: Microgrooved dental implants
Dental Implant placement




Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. radiographic marginal bone loss [ Time Frame: 3 years ]


Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years to 80 Years   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   Yes
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, good general health, without contraindications to implant surgery, presence of at least two non-adjacent edentulous sites requiring implant therapy. Each implant site had to be located in the left or right hemi-posterior mandible or in the left or right hemi- posterior maxilla.

-

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Exclusion criteria were: implants placed into regenerated bone, lack of a periodontal chart and periapical radiograph at the beginning and at the end of follow-up period, alcohol and drug abuse, pregnancy, or uncontrolled metabolic disorders, tobacco smoking (> 10 cigarettes/day), full mouth plaque score (FMPS), and full mouth bleeding score /FMBS) ≥25%, periodontally compromised patients (with attachment loss of 3 mm and/or radiographic bone loss of 30% of root length in 30% of sites), teeth adjacent to the implant area (mesial and distal) affected by untreated periodontal and/or endodontic infections.

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03674762


Locations
Layout table for location information
Italy
Universita la Sapienza
Roma, Italy, 00100
Sponsors and Collaborators
University of Roma La Sapienza
Publications:
Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; 1:CD003815 Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. (1977) Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Scandinavian Journal of Pasticic and Reconstructive Surgery; 16: 1-99. . Akcali A, Trullenque‐Eriksson A, Sun C, Petrie A, Nibali L, & Donos N. (2017) What is the effect of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone loss around dental implants? A systematic review. Clinical Oral Implant Research; 28, 1045-1053. Becktor JP, Isaksson S, Billström C. (2007) A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: Conventional loading using fixed prostheses. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research ;9:179-185. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I,Welander M, Lang NP, Lindhe J. (2007) Morphogenesis of the peri-implant mucosa: An experimental study in dogs. Clinical Oral Implant Research; 18:1-8. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, et al. (2003). Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. Journal of Dental Research 82:232-237. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, et al. (1997) Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research; 8:161-172. Cecchinato D, Olsson C, Lindhe J. (2004) Submerged or non-submerged healing of endosseous implants to be used in the rehabilitation of partially dentate patients. Journal of Clinical Periodontoly ;31:299-308. Cordaro L, Torsello F, Roccuzzo M (2009). Clinical outcome of submerged vs. non-submerged implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. Clinical Oral Implants Research ;20:1307-1313. Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. (2005) Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 1:CD003815 Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Chew YS, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. (2009) One-stage versus two-stage implant placement. A Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials. European Journal of Oral Implantology. Summer;2(2):91-9. Hermann, J.S., Cochran, D.L., Nummikoski, P.V. & Buser, D. (1997) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Journal of Periodontology 68: 1117-1130. Jansen, V.K., Conrads, G. & Richter, E.-J. (1997) Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 12: 527-540 Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG, Schoolfield J, Buser D, Hämmerle CH, Cochran DL (2008) The influence of nonmatching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. Journal of Periodontology. Feb;79(2):260-70. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, & Puisys A. (2009) The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: A 1‐year prospective controlled clinical trial. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implant; 24, 712-719. Linkevicius T, Apse, P, Grybauskas S, & Puisys A. (2010) Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: A 1‐year pilot study. Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery; 68, 2272-2277.

Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Renzo Guarnieri, professor, University of Roma La Sapienza
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674762    
Other Study ID Numbers: 4597
First Posted: September 18, 2018    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: September 18, 2018
Last Verified: September 2018
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: Undecided

Layout table for additional information
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No
Keywords provided by Renzo Guarnieri, University of Roma La Sapienza:
submerged two-stage, nonsubmerged one-stage, dental implants, marginal bone loss
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Layout table for MeSH terms
Mouth, Edentulous
Mouth Diseases
Stomatognathic Diseases
Tooth Diseases