Jaw, EdentulousNCT01641198
An Implant With an Acid-etched Fixture Surface and Internal-hex Collar May Achieve Greater Osseointegration.
A study testing Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3 in people with Jaw, Edentulous and Dental Implant, run by Université de Montréal at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Brånemark System® dental implant osseointegration was introduced clinically in 1965 as a novel approach to the replacement of missing teeth. Although this implant's traditional machined screw-shaped surface had excellent, well-documented short- and long-term osseointegration success, newer implant designs were… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 to 56 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Jaw, Edentulous, Dental Implant
- What is being tested?
- Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 58 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Mar 1992to 30 Sep 2013
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 25 to 56 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
No systemic disease (ASA Class 1)
Aged between 25 and 56 years
Non-smoking
No Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) disorder or other facial pain
Wearing of complete maxillary and mandibular removable prostheses for at least one year
Skeletal Class 1 inter-maxillary relationship
Type 2 and/or Type 3 mandibular bone quality
Possess at least 1 cm of bone height between the superior and inferior cortical tables and at least 6 mm of bucco-lingual bone width between mental foramen
Specifically requesting a fixed full arch dental prosthesis over the implants and a conventional full arch removable maxillary prosthesis
Accepting to sign informed consent documents.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Quantitative Osseous Healing of Acid Etched and Machined Titanium Implant Fixtures After 12 and 24 Months, and at 15-20 Years of Function With Full Arch Fixed Mandibular Prostheses.
Brånemark System® dental implant osseointegration was introduced clinically in 1965 as a novel approach to the replacement of missing teeth. Although this implant's traditional machined screw-shaped surface had excellent, well-documented short- and long-term osseointegration success, newer implant designs were introduced that could enhance biological fusion of the implant to jaw bones, allowing more rapid restoration and function. It was also claimed that such implants could lead to less bone loss with function. One such implant, Screw-Vent®, had a macrostructure very similar to that of the Brånemark implant, except that it's fixture surface was acid-etched which could enhance biological osseointegration. It also had a longer narrower smooth internal-hex interlocking flat collar that could better resist occlusal forces, leading to even less bone loss according to the manufacturer. However, no well-controlled clinical studies existed in 1990 that supported these claims. This study was undertaken, therefore, to first compare the Brånemark implant with another implant, Swede-Vent®, a copy of the Brånemark implant except for its fixture surface that was identically acid-etched as that of Screw-Vent by the same manufacturer. The effect on bone healing could then be compared between Brånemark's machined and Swede-Vent's acid-etched surfaces in the short- and long-terms. Our hypothesis was that the microtextured Swede-Vent fixture would lead to greater bone preservation. Since Screw-Vent's fixture surface was identically acid-etched as that of Swede-Vent by the same manufacturer, we could then evaluate the effect on bone healing of Screw-Vent's collar and the shorter wider machined smooth external-hex flat collar of Swede-Vent (identical to that of Brånemark). All three 2-part platform-matched parallel-wall implants were made of commercially pure titanium, had a very similar fixture macro-design, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (USA) and Health and Welfare Canada, and were commercially available in North America. Brånemark is still available, but with an oxidized microtextured fixture surface and a shortened machined smooth external-hex flat collar. Screw-Vent is still available with its microtextured fixture surface, but its machined smooth internal-hex flat collar has also been substantially shortened. Swede-Vent is no longer available.
Read the detailed description
This prospective randomized long-term superiority clinical trial tests the hypothesis that an implant with an acid-etched fixture surface and internal-hex machined flat collar results in greater bone preservation.
Age-eligible participants were recruited into this study between 1990 and 1992 from the external clinics of a university dental faculty and hospital affiliated dental department. Study was peer reviewed, had satisfied ethics committee's criteria for human clinical research, and was to take place at the university dental faculty and hospital affiliated department. Sixty participants were enrolled. The study's coordinator evaluated clinical charts to confirm that participants had satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria, and that registry operations, data collection, documentation and analysis followed established protocol.
A statistician who was not part of the research team prepared a sampling design that included three Configurations. Each Configuration contained five implants of the three types, thereby allowing an equal number of each implant type to be placed in a cyclical side-by-side rotating fashion at each of five sites between the mental foramen. Consequently, 100 implants of each of the three types were to be placed for a total of 300. However, two participants opted out before start of study so that 58 (30 women) received 290 implants, and each participant acted as their own control. A different identification number was placed on each participant's chart, and allocation concealment then allowed 20 participants to receive Configuration 1, 19 Configuration 2, and 19 Configuration 3. Configuration diagram (but not number) identifying the implant type and length to be placed at each site was stored inside each chart, and only shown to the operating team at surgery. Following restoration with a fixed complete dental prosthesis on the implants, each participant was examined and standardized peri-apical radiographs were taken of each implant after 12 and 24 months and at 15-20 years of function. Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and crestal abutment-implant interface/microgap (MG) was measured at right and left sides of each abutment-implant surface on the radiographs by examiners who were not part of the research team. Mean fBIC-MG values were then calculated, documented and compared between Brånemark, Swede-Vent and Screw-vent at the three intervals.
Assessment was based on intention to treat. Inter and intra-examiner reliability of measurements was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Bland-Altman Repeatability. Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model that included fixed effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect). Position and time were repeated within participants, and Shapiro-Wilk Test was applied to verify that data was following normal distribution. Bonferroni correction was used for pairwise comparisons, and a p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Confidence Interval was established at 2-sided 95% Confidence Level. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23® (IBM Corp, Armonk US).
The following were consulted in order to utilize standardized descriptive terms.
American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (1963) was used to classify each participant's physical health as Class 1 (obligatory).
Lekholm-Zarb Classification System (1987) was used to classify each participant's quality (density) of mandibular bone as Types 2 and 3 (obligatory).
Salzman Skeletal Bone Intermaxillary Classification System (1966) was used to classify each participant's profile skeletal relationship between maxilla and mandible as Class 1 (obligatory).
American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual (2001, fifth edition, Washington, DC) was used to describe certain participant baseline demographic characteristics.
- Conditions
- Jaw, Edentulous, Dental Implant
- Being tested
- Configuration 1, Configuration 2, Configuration 3
- Keywords
- Dental Implants Microtextured Fixture Machined Collar Bone
- Medical subject headings
- Jaw, Edentulous
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Configuration 1Device
B placed at sites 2 and 5, SW placed at sites 1 and 4, SC placed at site 3
Configuration 2Device
B placed at site 3, SW placed at sites 2 and 5, SC placed at sites 1 and 4
Configuration 3Device
B placed at sites 1 and 4, SW placed at site 3, SC placed at sites 2 and 5
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Configuration 1 | Active comparator | Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at one site Receives: Device: Configuration 1 |
| Configuration 2 | Experimental | Device placement: B (Brånemark) at one site, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites Receives: Device: Configuration 2 |
| Configuration 3 | Experimental | Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at one site, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites Receives: Device: Configuration 3 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest was measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 12 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Measured: After 12 months of function
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 24 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Measured: After 24 months of function
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded at 15 to 20 years of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Measured: At 15-20 years of function
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Jul 2012 (estimated)
- Study startMar 1992
- Primary completion24 Mar 1998
- Study completion30 Sep 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Jaw, EdentulousStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 58 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Université de Montréal
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medical Research Council of Canada, FRSQ, CoreVent, Université de Montréal
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Aldo Joseph Camarda, Université de Montréal
- Investigators
- Patrice Milot, DMD,MSD, Principal investigator, Université de MontréalHugo Ciaburro, DMD, MSc, Principal investigator, Université de MontréalAldo-Joseph Camarda, DDS, MSc, Principal investigator, Université de Montréal
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01641198
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 12-069-CERES-D
- Status last verified
- Dec 2020
- First submitted
- 6 Jul 2012
- Last updated
- 17 Dec 2020
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Dec 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Quantitative Osseous Healing of Acid Etched and Machined Titanium Implant Fixtures After 12 and 24 Months, and at 15-20 Years of Function With Full Arch Fixed Mandibular Prostheses.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01641198
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 12-069-CERES-D
- Conditions
- Jaw, Edentulous, Dental Implant
- Keywords
- Dental Implants Microtextured Fixture Machined Collar Bone
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 58 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Université de MontréalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medical Research Council of Canada, FRSQ, CoreVent, Université de Montréal
- Study start
- Mar 1992 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 24 Mar 1998 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Jul 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 16 Jan 2019
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Brånemark System® dental implant osseointegration was introduced clinically in 1965 as a novel approach to the replacement of missing teeth. Although this implant's traditional machined screw-shaped surface had excellent, well-documented short- and long-term osseointegration success, newer implant designs were introduced that could enhance biological fusion of the implant to jaw bones, allowing more rapid restoration and function. It was also claimed that such implants could lead to less bone loss with function. One such implant, Screw-Vent®, had a macrostructure very similar to that of the Brånemark implant, except that it's fixture surface was acid-etched which could enhance biological osseointegration. It also had a longer narrower smooth internal-hex interlocking flat collar that could better resist occlusal forces, leading to even less bone loss according to the manufacturer. However, no well-controlled clinical studies existed in 1990 that supported these claims. This study was undertaken, therefore, to first compare the Brånemark implant with another implant, Swede-Vent®, a copy of the Brånemark implant except for its fixture surface that was identically acid-etched as that of Screw-Vent by the same manufacturer. The effect on bone healing could then be compared between Brånemark's machined and Swede-Vent's acid-etched surfaces in the short- and long-terms. Our hypothesis was that the microtextured Swede-Vent fixture would lead to greater bone preservation. Since Screw-Vent's fixture surface was identically acid-etched as that of Swede-Vent by the same manufacturer, we could then evaluate the effect on bone healing of Screw-Vent's collar and the shorter wider machined smooth external-hex flat collar of Swede-Vent (identical to that of Brånemark). All three 2-part platform-matched parallel-wall implants were made of commercially pure titanium, had a very similar fixture macro-design, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (USA) and Health and Welfare Canada, and were commercially available in North America. Brånemark is still available, but with an oxidized microtextured fixture surface and a shortened machined smooth external-hex flat collar. Screw-Vent is still available with its microtextured fixture surface, but its machined smooth internal-hex flat collar has also been substantially shortened. Swede-Vent is no longer available.
Detailed description
This prospective randomized long-term superiority clinical trial tests the hypothesis that an implant with an acid-etched fixture surface and internal-hex machined flat collar results in greater bone preservation.
Age-eligible participants were recruited into this study between 1990 and 1992 from the external clinics of a university dental faculty and hospital affiliated dental department. Study was peer reviewed, had satisfied ethics committee's criteria for human clinical research, and was to take place at the university dental faculty and hospital affiliated department. Sixty participants were enrolled. The study's coordinator evaluated clinical charts to confirm that participants had satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria, and that registry operations, data collection, documentation and analysis followed established protocol.
A statistician who was not part of the research team prepared a sampling design that included three Configurations. Each Configuration contained five implants of the three types, thereby allowing an equal number of each implant type to be placed in a cyclical side-by-side rotating fashion at each of five sites between the mental foramen. Consequently, 100 implants of each of the three types were to be placed for a total of 300. However, two participants opted out before start of study so that 58 (30 women) received 290 implants, and each participant acted as their own control. A different identification number was placed on each participant's chart, and allocation concealment then allowed 20 participants to receive Configuration 1, 19 Configuration 2, and 19 Configuration 3. Configuration diagram (but not number) identifying the implant type and length to be placed at each site was stored inside each chart, and only shown to the operating team at surgery. Following restoration with a fixed complete dental prosthesis on the implants, each participant was examined and standardized peri-apical radiographs were taken of each implant after 12 and 24 months and at 15-20 years of function. Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and crestal abutment-implant interface/microgap (MG) was measured at right and left sides of each abutment-implant surface on the radiographs by examiners who were not part of the research team. Mean fBIC-MG values were then calculated, documented and compared between Brånemark, Swede-Vent and Screw-vent at the three intervals.
Assessment was based on intention to treat. Inter and intra-examiner reliability of measurements was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Bland-Altman Repeatability. Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model that included fixed effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect). Position and time were repeated within participants, and Shapiro-Wilk Test was applied to verify that data was following normal distribution. Bonferroni correction was used for pairwise comparisons, and a p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Confidence Interval was established at 2-sided 95% Confidence Level. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23® (IBM Corp, Armonk US).
The following were consulted in order to utilize standardized descriptive terms.
American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (1963) was used to classify each participant's physical health as Class 1 (obligatory).
Lekholm-Zarb Classification System (1987) was used to classify each participant's quality (density) of mandibular bone as Types 2 and 3 (obligatory).
Salzman Skeletal Bone Intermaxillary Classification System (1966) was used to classify each participant's profile skeletal relationship between maxilla and mandible as Class 1 (obligatory).
American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual (2001, fifth edition, Washington, DC) was used to describe certain participant baseline demographic characteristics.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Configuration 1 | Active comparator | Device: Configuration 1Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at one site |
| Configuration 2 | Experimental | Device: Configuration 2Device placement: B (Brånemark) at one site, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites |
| Configuration 3 | Experimental | Device: Configuration 3Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at one site, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 to 56 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Configuration 1B placed at sites 2 and 5, SW placed at sites 1 and 4, SC placed at site 3 | Device | Configuration 1 |
| Configuration 2B placed at site 3, SW placed at sites 2 and 5, SC placed at sites 1 and 4 | Device | Configuration 2 |
| Configuration 3B placed at sites 1 and 4, SW placed at site 3, SC placed at sites 2 and 5 | Device | Configuration 3 |
Primary outcome
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Time frame: After 12 months of function
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest was measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 12 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Time frame: After 24 months of function
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 24 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Time frame: At 15-20 years of function
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded at 15 to 20 years of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Dec 2020.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Jaw, Edentulous
Active, not recruiting
L-PRF Block vs Composite Graft for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation
Alveolar Ridge Resorption After Extraction, Alveolar Bone Loss
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Digital and Conventional Clasp-retained Partial Dentures (DIGICLASP)
Partial Edentulism
Recruiting
Dynamic vs. Static Jaw Relations in Implant-Supported Prostheses: Chewing Efficiency
Chewing Efficiency in Completely Edentulous Patients Rehabilitated With Implant-Supported Full-Arch Prostheses
Active, not recruiting
Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Clinical Outcome of PrimeTaper EV Implant in Single Tooth Restorations
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially
Recruiting
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of UV-Treated Dental Implants With or Without Melatonin in the Upper Posterior Jaw
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially, Bone Resorption
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Patrice Milot, DMD,MSD principal investigator
Université de Montréal
Hugo Ciaburro, DMD, MSc principal investigator
Université de Montréal
Aldo-Joseph Camarda, DDS, MSc principal investigator
Université de Montréal
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3 in people with Jaw, Edentulous and Dental Implant, run by Université de Montréal at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Dec 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 16 Jan 2019). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing (time frame: After 12 months of function). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Dec 2020.