Dental ImplantsBL-ImplantsNCT03232372
The Marginal Bone Loss in Dental Implants
A study testing External-Connection non-submerged Imp, Internal Connection Submerged implants and Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl in people with Dental Implants, run by Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
When an implant is placed, it is assumed that there will be a loss of bone in the more coronal area around it. The placement of the implant in relation to bone level, either crestal or subcrestal and the type of connection chosen, either external connection or internal connection, have been related as one of the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Implants
- What is being tested?
- External-Connection non-submerged Imp, Internal Connection Submerged implants and Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 8 May 2017to 17 Feb 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients of general age who present partial edentulism in the mandible and / or maxilla and require the replacement of at least 2 teeth by implants in the same maxilla.
- The teeth must have been removed at least 4-6 months before implant placement.
- The minimum required bone height would be 6mm, which would be determined by an orthopantomography (1: 1)
Who cannot join
- History of use of bisphosphonates
- Evidence of serious systemic diseases such as recent infarction
- Uncontrolled diabetes, coagulation disorders, cancer, psychiatric contraindications,
- Active infection in the area of the implants
- Absence of an antagonist in the area of implant placement
- Pharmacological treatments capable of affecting gingival health
- Pregnant or lactating women.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Marginal Bone Loss in Implants of External Connection Versus Internal Connection and Submerged Implants Versus Non-submerged Implants
When an implant is placed, it is assumed that there will be a loss of bone in the more coronal area around it. The placement of the implant in relation to bone level, either crestal or subcrestal and the type of connection chosen, either external connection or internal connection, have been related as one of the factors that caused this loss. The preservation of the peri-implant bone influences the shape and contour of the underlying soft tissues, which are important for the aesthetic result of the treatment and for the success of the same.
Hypothesis: The hypothesis is that there are no differences between the external and internal connection with regard to marginal bone loss. In implants placed at the crestal and subcrestal level, the hypothesis is that there is greater marginal bone loss in implants placed at the subcrestal level.
Read more
Objectives: Main: To evaluate the marginal bone loss around implants of internal connection and external connection. Secondary: To compare the loss of bone in implants of internal connection placed at crestal and subcrestal level. To evaluate intra and post-operative complications.
Material and methods: A prospective and randomized radiological study will be performed. 150 implants will be placed in patients who must present partial edentulism and require the replacement of at least 2 crowns on implants in the same jaw. In a randomized manner, implants of external connection and internal connection will be placed. Other features such as surface treatment type of the implant will be similar in both types of implants to reduce bias.
With this study the investigators will try to define if there is a procedure in when to the connection of the implant and the location of this, that is more beneficial with respect to the preservation of bone.
Read the detailed description
Implant dentistry has undergone major development and expansion since the nineteen sixties, when Dr. Branemark (Sweden) introduced the concept of osseointegration. The use of implants to replace missing teeth and restore function has presented a high success rate and long-term survival. For this reason rehabilitation by means of implants has become standard and well accepted by patients, who increasingly demand treatments offering greater comfort and aesthetics. Implant-based treatments must fulfill a range of physiological, functional and aesthetic criteria before they can be considered successful. These include osseointegration stability and duration, absence of pathological processes, and aesthetics that satisfy the patient.
There are diverse types of implants and corresponding systems that connect the implant to the prosthesis. Implant connections fall into two main groups: External and Internal Connection.
When an implant is placed, it is estimated that there will be bone loss around this during the first year, both horizontally and vertically. Actually is considered successful if the loss of crestal bone around the implant is less than 1.5mm during the first year and less than 0.2 annually in the next. This bone loss continues to occur despite the new designs of implants that try to stop it. The preservation of the peri-implant bone is an important factor for the success of the same. The quantity and quality influence the shape and contour of the overlying soft tissues, which are important for the aesthetic result of the treatment. The hypothesis is that there are no differences between the external and internal connection with regard to marginal bone loss. In implants placed at the crestal and subcrestal level, the hypothesis is that more marginal bone is loss in implants placed at the subcrestal level design.
A prospective randomized controlled, split-mouth clinical trial with a sample size of 50 implants per arm is proposed.
Population of the study Patients attended in HOUB (Hospital Odontológico Universitario de Bellvitge. Master of Medicine Surgery and Implantology and Master of Dentistry in Oncology and Immunocompromised Patients).
Inclusion criteria Patients of general age who present partial edentulism in the mandible and / or maxilla and require the replacement of at least 2 teeth by implants in the same maxilla. The teeth must have been removed at least 4-6 months before implant placement. The minimum required bone height would be 6mm, which would be determined by an orthopantomography (1: 1) to be performed in all cases. The space where the implants are placed should have sufficient bone volume that does not require regeneration (height> 6mm and bone width> 5mm). If expansion is to be done, it should be done in both techniques. The minimum distance from one implant to the adjacent teeth should be at least 1.5 mm, and in the case of two or more adjacent implants, at least 3 mm between them.
Intervention 150 implants will be placed (50 of external connection and 100 of internal connection: 50 with design for infracrestal placement and crestal-level.) Following the inclusion criteria, patients should require the replacement of at least two teeth in the same jaw.
To randomize we will use the application created by a computer programmer that generates random numbers.
All implants will be placed by the students of 3rd of Master, using the same surgical protocol.
Post-operative monitoring and follow-up visits Once the implants are placed, a period of osseointegration of 4 months will be left in the maxilla and 3 in the mandible. The control visits to assess clinical aspects were performed by the principal investigator at the following times: (0) prior to implant placement, (1) implant placement, (2) at 7 (+/- 1) days of placing the implant, where it will be used to remove the suture, (3) within 15 days (+/- 2 days) of placing the implant, (4) one month after placement, (5) 3 months (+/- 2 weeks) if it is placed in the mandible and at 4 months (+/- 2 weeks) in the jaw, when the healing pillar will be placed, (6) one week later, ) (+/- 1 day) at the printing press, (8) at 7 (+/- 1 day), where a metal test would be performed and (9) in the following week (+/- 1 Day), in the placement of the prosthesis, (10) 6 months after placement of the prosthesis and (11) 12 months after placement of the prosthesis.
The X-ray control, to compare bone loss, would be performed by an independent evaluator at the following times: (T1) prior to implant placement, (T2) on the day of implant placement, (T3) per month, (T4) at the time of placement of the implant Prosthesis (without specifying in which month), (T5) at 6 months after loading and (T6) one year after occlusal loading.
The stability implants, would be performed by an independent evaluator using the analysis of the resonance frequency (Penguin device) The measurements will be made the day of implant placement, the day of placement of the healing abutment (two-three months after implant placement) and the day of delivery of the crown (3-4 months after placement of the implant)
Study variables - Primary study variables: Percentage of bone loss
- Secondary study variables: Tobacco consumption Plate Index (PLI) Bleeding index (SBI) Implant stability ratio (ISQ) Intra and postoperative parameters
Statistic analysis The data will be entered into an Excel database and processed using the statistical package (SPSS )Windows. The level of statistical significance will be p <0.05.
A descriptive study of all the variables and the relationship between bone loss and the implant system or the different variables will be analyzed by the t-student for the independent data or by non-parametric tests (Mann-W-U ) If the distribution is not normal.
The Chi-squared test will be used to analyze the qualitative variables. Multiple regression analysis will be used to evaluate the association between the dependent variable (bone loss at 0, 1, 4, 6 and 12 months) and the independent variables, internal connection or external connection. All the variables that could potentially affect the study relationship, such as age, sex, smoking, and oral hygiene, were used as control variables in the regression.
Blind study
Ethical aspects The study would be carried out in accordance with the general recommendations of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki for biomedical research in humans.
Eligible patients would be explained in detail to the study protocol and given an information sheet to those who enroll, they would be given to sign two informed consents; The first, explaining the risk and complications derived from implant placement surgery and the second where they agree to participate in the study. All patients will have a medical history and a data collection sheet attached to their history
- Conditions
- Dental Implants
- Being tested
- External-Connection non-submerged Imp, Internal Connection Submerged implants, Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl
- Keywords
- Bone loss, dental implant desing
- Medical subject headings
- Bone Diseases, Metabolic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
External-Connection non-submerged ImpDevice
Through a surgical procedure, we will implant implant whit external connection and non submerged to patients.
Internal Connection Submerged implantsDevice
Through a surgical procedure, we will implant implant whit internal connection and submerged to patients.
Internal Connection non-Submerged ImplDevice
Through a surgical procedure, we will implant implant whit internal connection and non-submerged to patients.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| External-Connection non-submerged Imp | Experimental | We will place implants with external connection and non- submerged to assess the bone loss around Receives: Device: External-Connection non-submerged Imp |
| Internal Connection Submerged implants | Experimental | We will place implants with internal connection and submerged to assess the bone loss around Receives: Device: Internal Connection Submerged implants |
| Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl | Experimental | We will place Internal connection implant and non-Submerged Implants to assess the bone loss around Receives: Device: Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT CONNECTIONS AND POSITIONING OF THE IMPLANTS REGARDING THE BONE OF LOSS
By means of measurements in millimeters in the radiographs, the loss of bone will be compared. These measurements will be made one month after the placement of the implant, at 3-4 months in the placement of the crown, 6 months after placement of the crown and one year after placement of the crown
Measured: 1,4 years around
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Jul 2017
- Study start8 May 2017
- Primary completion30 Jan 2020
- Study completion17 Feb 2022 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dental ImplantsStudies 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
- Model description
- To randomize we will use the application created by a computer programmer that generates random numbers. In each jaw, each edentulous space will be randomly assigned (A, B, C, D, ..). Following the alphabetical order to each letter will be assigned randomly the connection to use, as detailed below: * 2 edentulous spaces: A: c. External or c. Internal (random) B: the one that is pending (The type of internal connection (crestal or infracrestal) will be chosen at random.) * 3 edentulous spaces: A: c. External, c. Crestal or infracrestal internal B: randomly choose between the two remaining options C: the one that is pending
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Natalia Palacios Garzón, University of Barcelona
- Investigators
- Natalia Palacios Garzón, PhD student, Principal investigator, HUBellvitge RecruitingJosé López López, PhD, Study director, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03232372
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HUB
- Acronym
- BL-Implants
- Status last verified
- Sep 2021
- First submitted
- 20 Jul 2017
- Last updated
- 13 Sep 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Spring;7(1):47-61.
PubMed 24892113Penarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernandez AJ, Alonso-Gonzalez R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martinez J, Penarrocha-Diago M. Influence of implant neck design and implant-abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Nov;24(11):1192-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
PubMed 22925048Galindo-Moreno P, Fernandez-Jimenez A, O'Valle F, Monje A, Silvestre FJ, Juodzbalys G, Sanchez-Fernandez E, Catena A. Influence of the crown-implant connection on the preservation of peri-implant bone: a retrospective multifactorial analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Mar-Apr;30(2):384-90. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3804.
PubMed 25830399
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Sep 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Marginal Bone Loss in Implants of External Connection Versus Internal Connection and Submerged Implants Versus Non-submerged Implants
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03232372
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BL-Implants / HUB
- Conditions
- Dental Implants
- Keywords
- Bone loss, dental implant desing
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Universitari de BellvitgeUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 8 May 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jan 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 17 Feb 2022 (estimated)
- First posted
- 28 Jul 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
When an implant is placed, it is assumed that there will be a loss of bone in the more coronal area around it. The placement of the implant in relation to bone level, either crestal or subcrestal and the type of connection chosen, either external connection or internal connection, have been related as one of the factors that caused this loss. The preservation of the peri-implant bone influences the shape and contour of the underlying soft tissues, which are important for the aesthetic result of the treatment and for the success of the same.
Hypothesis: The hypothesis is that there are no differences between the external and internal connection with regard to marginal bone loss. In implants placed at the crestal and subcrestal level, the hypothesis is that there is greater marginal bone loss in implants placed at the subcrestal level.
Objectives: Main: To evaluate the marginal bone loss around implants of internal connection and external connection. Secondary: To compare the loss of bone in implants of internal connection placed at crestal and subcrestal level. To evaluate intra and post-operative complications.
Material and methods: A prospective and randomized radiological study will be performed. 150 implants will be placed in patients who must present partial edentulism and require the replacement of at least 2 crowns on implants in the same jaw. In a randomized manner, implants of external connection and internal connection will be placed. Other features such as surface treatment type of the implant will be similar in both types of implants to reduce bias.
With this study the investigators will try to define if there is a procedure in when to the connection of the implant and the location of this, that is more beneficial with respect to the preservation of bone.
Detailed description
Implant dentistry has undergone major development and expansion since the nineteen sixties, when Dr. Branemark (Sweden) introduced the concept of osseointegration. The use of implants to replace missing teeth and restore function has presented a high success rate and long-term survival. For this reason rehabilitation by means of implants has become standard and well accepted by patients, who increasingly demand treatments offering greater comfort and aesthetics. Implant-based treatments must fulfill a range of physiological, functional and aesthetic criteria before they can be considered successful. These include osseointegration stability and duration, absence of pathological processes, and aesthetics that satisfy the patient.
There are diverse types of implants and corresponding systems that connect the implant to the prosthesis. Implant connections fall into two main groups: External and Internal Connection.
When an implant is placed, it is estimated that there will be bone loss around this during the first year, both horizontally and vertically. Actually is considered successful if the loss of crestal bone around the implant is less than 1.5mm during the first year and less than 0.2 annually in the next. This bone loss continues to occur despite the new designs of implants that try to stop it. The preservation of the peri-implant bone is an important factor for the success of the same. The quantity and quality influence the shape and contour of the overlying soft tissues, which are important for the aesthetic result of the treatment. The hypothesis is that there are no differences between the external and internal connection with regard to marginal bone loss. In implants placed at the crestal and subcrestal level, the hypothesis is that more marginal bone is loss in implants placed at the subcrestal level design.
A prospective randomized controlled, split-mouth clinical trial with a sample size of 50 implants per arm is proposed.
Population of the study Patients attended in HOUB (Hospital Odontológico Universitario de Bellvitge. Master of Medicine Surgery and Implantology and Master of Dentistry in Oncology and Immunocompromised Patients).
Inclusion criteria Patients of general age who present partial edentulism in the mandible and / or maxilla and require the replacement of at least 2 teeth by implants in the same maxilla. The teeth must have been removed at least 4-6 months before implant placement. The minimum required bone height would be 6mm, which would be determined by an orthopantomography (1: 1) to be performed in all cases. The space where the implants are placed should have sufficient bone volume that does not require regeneration (height> 6mm and bone width> 5mm). If expansion is to be done, it should be done in both techniques. The minimum distance from one implant to the adjacent teeth should be at least 1.5 mm, and in the case of two or more adjacent implants, at least 3 mm between them.
Intervention 150 implants will be placed (50 of external connection and 100 of internal connection: 50 with design for infracrestal placement and crestal-level.) Following the inclusion criteria, patients should require the replacement of at least two teeth in the same jaw.
To randomize we will use the application created by a computer programmer that generates random numbers.
All implants will be placed by the students of 3rd of Master, using the same surgical protocol.
Post-operative monitoring and follow-up visits Once the implants are placed, a period of osseointegration of 4 months will be left in the maxilla and 3 in the mandible. The control visits to assess clinical aspects were performed by the principal investigator at the following times: (0) prior to implant placement, (1) implant placement, (2) at 7 (+/- 1) days of placing the implant, where it will be used to remove the suture, (3) within 15 days (+/- 2 days) of placing the implant, (4) one month after placement, (5) 3 months (+/- 2 weeks) if it is placed in the mandible and at 4 months (+/- 2 weeks) in the jaw, when the healing pillar will be placed, (6) one week later, ) (+/- 1 day) at the printing press, (8) at 7 (+/- 1 day), where a metal test would be performed and (9) in the following week (+/- 1 Day), in the placement of the prosthesis, (10) 6 months after placement of the prosthesis and (11) 12 months after placement of the prosthesis.
The X-ray control, to compare bone loss, would be performed by an independent evaluator at the following times: (T1) prior to implant placement, (T2) on the day of implant placement, (T3) per month, (T4) at the time of placement of the implant Prosthesis (without specifying in which month), (T5) at 6 months after loading and (T6) one year after occlusal loading.
The stability implants, would be performed by an independent evaluator using the analysis of the resonance frequency (Penguin device) The measurements will be made the day of implant placement, the day of placement of the healing abutment (two-three months after implant placement) and the day of delivery of the crown (3-4 months after placement of the implant)
Study variables - Primary study variables: Percentage of bone loss
- Secondary study variables: Tobacco consumption Plate Index (PLI) Bleeding index (SBI) Implant stability ratio (ISQ) Intra and postoperative parameters
Statistic analysis The data will be entered into an Excel database and processed using the statistical package (SPSS )Windows. The level of statistical significance will be p <0.05.
A descriptive study of all the variables and the relationship between bone loss and the implant system or the different variables will be analyzed by the t-student for the independent data or by non-parametric tests (Mann-W-U ) If the distribution is not normal.
The Chi-squared test will be used to analyze the qualitative variables. Multiple regression analysis will be used to evaluate the association between the dependent variable (bone loss at 0, 1, 4, 6 and 12 months) and the independent variables, internal connection or external connection. All the variables that could potentially affect the study relationship, such as age, sex, smoking, and oral hygiene, were used as control variables in the regression.
Blind study
Ethical aspects The study would be carried out in accordance with the general recommendations of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki for biomedical research in humans.
Eligible patients would be explained in detail to the study protocol and given an information sheet to those who enroll, they would be given to sign two informed consents; The first, explaining the risk and complications derived from implant placement surgery and the second where they agree to participate in the study. All patients will have a medical history and a data collection sheet attached to their history
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- To randomize we will use the application created by a computer programmer that generates random numbers. In each jaw, each edentulous space will be randomly assigned (A, B, C, D, ..). Following the alphabetical order to each letter will be assigned randomly the connection to use, as detailed below: * 2 edentulous spaces: A: c. External or c. Internal (random) B: the one that is pending (The type of internal connection (crestal or infracrestal) will be chosen at random.) * 3 edentulous spaces: A: c. External, c. Crestal or infracrestal internal B: randomly choose between the two remaining options C: the one that is pending
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| External-Connection non-submerged Imp | Experimental | Device: External-Connection non-submerged ImpWe will place implants with external connection and non- submerged to assess the bone loss around |
| Internal Connection Submerged implants | Experimental | Device: Internal Connection Submerged implantsWe will place implants with internal connection and submerged to assess the bone loss around |
| Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl | Experimental | Device: Internal Connection non-Submerged ImplWe will place Internal connection implant and non-Submerged Implants to assess the bone loss around |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients of general age who present partial edentulism in the mandible and / or maxilla and require the replacement of at least 2 teeth by implants in the same maxilla.
- The teeth must have been removed at least 4-6 months before implant placement.
- The minimum required bone height would be 6mm, which would be determined by an orthopantomography (1: 1)
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- History of use of bisphosphonates
- Evidence of serious systemic diseases such as recent infarction
- Uncontrolled diabetes, coagulation disorders, cancer, psychiatric contraindications,
- Active infection in the area of the implants
- Absence of an antagonist in the area of implant placement
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 |
|---|---|---|
| External-Connection non-submerged ImpThrough a surgical procedure, we will implant implant whit external connection and non submerged to patients. | Device | External-Connection non-submerged Imp |
| Internal Connection Submerged implantsThrough a surgical procedure, we will implant implant whit internal connection and submerged to patients. | Device | Internal Connection Submerged implants |
| Internal Connection non-Submerged ImplThrough a surgical procedure, we will implant implant whit internal connection and non-submerged to patients. | Device | Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl |
Primary outcome
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT CONNECTIONS AND POSITIONING OF THE IMPLANTS REGARDING THE BONE OF LOSS
Time frame: 1,4 years around
By means of measurements in millimeters in the radiographs, the loss of bone will be compared. These measurements will be made one month after the placement of the implant, at 3-4 months in the placement of the crown, 6 months after placement of the crown and one year after placement of the crown
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Sep 2021.
- Background: PubMed 24892113Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Spring;7(1):47-61.
- Background: PubMed 22925048Penarrocha-Diago MA, Flichy-Fernandez AJ, Alonso-Gonzalez R, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martinez J, Penarrocha-Diago M. Influence of implant neck design and implant-abutment connection type on peri-implant health. Radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Nov;24(11):1192-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02562.x. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
- Background: PubMed 25830399Galindo-Moreno P, Fernandez-Jimenez A, O'Valle F, Monje A, Silvestre FJ, Juodzbalys G, Sanchez-Fernandez E, Catena A. Influence of the crown-implant connection on the preservation of peri-implant bone: a retrospective multifactorial analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Mar-Apr;30(2):384-90. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3804.
Related trials for Dental Implants
Enrolling by invitation
Investigation of the Effect of Horizontal Platelet Rich Fibrin Placed in Tooth Extraction Sockets on Bone Formation
Tooth Loss, Dental Implant Failed
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Plaque and Bleeding on Probing Around Implants Supporting Fixed Full-Arch Dental Prostheses
Peri-Implant Health
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Lactoferrin Nanohydrogel for Soft And Hard Tissue Healing and Implant Stability in Immediate Implant Placement
Dental Implant, Wound Healing
RecruitingObservational study
Movement of Dental Implants During Osseointegration
Dental Implants, Osseointegration
RecruitingObservational study
Changes in Oral Health-related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) During Full Arch Implant Treatment
Edentulous Mouth, Quality of Life
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.
Natalia Palacios Garzón, PhD student principal investigator
HUBellvitge Recruiting
José López López, PhD study director
Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing External-Connection non-submerged Imp, Internal Connection Submerged implants and Internal Connection non-Submerged Impl in people with Dental Implants, run by Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge at 1 site in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Sep 2021. 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 Spain. 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?
Results are not available in the source record.
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?
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT CONNECTIONS AND POSITIONING OF THE IMPLANTS REGARDING THE BONE OF LOSS (time frame: 1,4 years around). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03232372, which also lists 3 linked publications.
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 13 Sep 2021.