AdhesivenessNCT03256409
Bar and Ball Joint Overdentures Surface Roughness and Microbial Adherence
A study testing Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe and Surface Roughness (Ra) in people with Adhesiveness, run by Gastrovital.
Trial summary
The aim of the study was to compare the surface roughness (Ra) of the implant retained mandibular bar overdenture (BOD) and the implant retained mandibular ball joint overdenture (BJOD) in jaw and its relation with the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe, in time 30 to 180 days in mouth. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 to 60 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Adhesiveness
- What is being tested?
- Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe and Surface Roughness (Ra)
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 10 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 5 Jan 2016to 20 Jun 2017
- 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 50 to 60 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Total edentulous mandible from 50 to 60 years of age
- Absence of systemic conditions.
Who cannot join
- Hyperplasia and history of periodontal disease
- Patients with local and/or systemic antimicrobial treatment within 72 hours prior to evaluation during the study
- Signs of severe oral parafunction
About this study
The aim of the study was to compare the surface roughness (Ra) of the implant retained mandibular bar overdenture (BOD) and the implant retained mandibular ball joint overdenture (BJOD) in jaw and its relation with the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe, in time 30 to 180 days in mouth. Five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (BOD); and five systems joint ball Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany; Andorra (BJOD), were used in two parallel groups of five participants, in an essay to simple blind person. To 30 to 180 days they were withdrawn and they were evaluated the Ra (Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan) and the adhesion of microorganisms (CFU/ml).
The Ra:um (the 30th and 180th): BOD, 0.965 - 1.351; BJOD, 1.325 - 2.384. Adhesion: molds and yeasts, BOD, 2.6 x 102 and 4.6 x 103; BJOD, 3.0 x 102 and 5.3 x 104. Adhesion: mesophyll aerobe, BOD, 3.8 x 106 and 5.8 x 106; BJOD, 4.3 x 106 and 7.1 x 107. The BOD and BJOD, present different Ra (P < 0.05) to 30 to 180 days. To 30 days (P = 0.489) differences do not exist as regards the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe between both overdentures. To 180 days (P = 0.723) differences exist as regards the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe, being major in BJOD.
Read the detailed description
Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe to BOD and BJOD, Surface roughness (Ra), and Statistical Analyses Microbial populations have been controlled in the saliva at initial time and adherence at 30 to 180 days after the overdentures in the mouth. The saliva sample was obtained from the patient in a sterile sputum collection bottle through a sterile solution. The overdenture samples were extracted and processed for analysis. Each sample was submerged in ¼ sterile Ringer and subjected to vigorous ultrasound shaking. From each of the microbial suspensions, successive dilutions were made to determine the total number of viable microorganisms present. Total count of mold and yeast and total count of mesophyll aerobe were performed.
The surface roughness of BOD and BJOD was determined with the rugosimeter the Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® (Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan), through a displacement force of 4mN and of the tray to 0.5 mm/s and back to 1 mm/s (Murtra and Arcís,1999). The roughness profile Ra was evaluated and determined in microns (ųm) through five readings for each of the samples in the study respectively.
The results of BOD and BJOD were compared for the determination of Ra and the adherence of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe. For this, we used the statistics Shapiro-Wilk, T and the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to determinate the relationship between the study variables.
- Conditions
- Adhesiveness
- Being tested
- Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe, Surface Roughness (Ra)
- Keywords
- biomaterials, methacrylates, microbiology, implant dentistry/implantology, removable prosthodontics, clinical studies/trials
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobeOther
Also called Five BOD and Five BJOD
Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe to BOD and BJOD Microbial populations have been controlled in the saliva at initial time and adherence at 30 - 180 days after the overdentures in the mouth. The saliva sample was obtained from the patient in a sterile sputum collection bottle through a sterile solution. The overdenture samples were extracted and processed for analysis. Each sample was submerged in ¼ sterile Ringer and subjected to vigorous ultrasound shaking. From each of the microbial suspensions, successive dilutions were made to determine the total number of viable microorganisms present. Total count of mold and yeast and total count of mesophyll aerobe were performed.
Surface Roughness (Ra)Other
Also called Five BOD and Five BJOD
The surface roughness of BOD and BJOD was determined with the rugosimeter the Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® (Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan), through a displacement force of 4mN and of the tray to 0.5 mm/s and back to 1 mm/s (Murtra and Arcís,1999). The roughness profile Ra was evaluated and determined in microns (ųm) through five readings for each of the samples in the study respectively.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Five Bar overdenture: BOD | Experimental | Five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (Bar overdenture: Group 1) For the manufacture of the overdentures it was used as material of choice Lucitone 199® (Dentsply International Inc. York, PA) and for the adaptation of the retention systems it was used Softreliner Tough Soft® Tocuyama Dental Corporation Inc., Japan. The working protocol for determining the BOD Ra and the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobics was carried out entirely by an investigator. Patients were randomly assigned to group 1. The BOD were removed at 30 - 180 days for surface roughness evaluation (Ra:ųm) and the evaluation of the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe (CFU/ml). Receives: Other: Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe; Other: Surface Roughness (Ra) |
| Five Ball Joint Overdenture: BJOD | Experimental | Five systems ball joint Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany, Andorra (Ball Joint Overdenture: Group 2) For the manufacture of the overdentures it was used as material of choice Lucitone 199® (Dentsply International Inc. York, PA) and for the adaptation of the retention systems it was used Softreliner Tough Soft® Tocuyama Dental Corporation Inc., Japan. The working protocol for determining the BJOD Ra and the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobics was carried out entirely by an investigator. Patients were randomly assigned to group 2. The s BJOD were removed at 30 - 180 days for surface roughness evaluation (Ra:ųm) and the evaluation of the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe (CFU/ml). Receives: Other: Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe; Other: Surface Roughness (Ra) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Average values of surface roughness (Ra) and correlation of independent test in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) 30 - 180 days.
The average Ra Group 1: BOD titanium bar CARES® and synOcta Straumann® in 30 days: 0.965um. In 180 days: 1.351um. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent test (P < 0.05) 30 days (P= 0.000) and 180 days (P=0.001) determined different Ra. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit.
Measured: Change from 30 to 180 days
Average values of surface roughness (Ra) and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days.
The average Ra Group 2: BJOD Klockner® in 30 days: 1.325um. 180 days: 2.384 um. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent test (P < 0.05) 30 days (P=0.000) and 180 days (P=0.000) determined different Ra. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit.
Measured: Change from 30 to 180 days
Secondary outcomes (2)
Average values of mold and yeast adhesion and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) and implant-retained mandibular ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days
Average adhesion values of mold and yeast. Group 1 (BOD): 30 days: 2.6 x 102 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 30 days: 3.0 x 102 CFU/ml. Group 1 (BOD): 180 days: 4.6 x 103 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 180 days: 5.3 x 104 CFU/ml. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent tests 30 days (P > 0.05) BOD (P=0.051) y BJOD (P=0.052) showed no different adherence. For 180 days (P < 0.05) BOD (P=0.025) y BJOD (P=0.027) presented different adhesion. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit
Measured: Change from 30 to 180 days
Average values of mesophyll aerobe adhesion and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) and implant-retained mandibular ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days
Average adhesion values of mesophyll aerobe. Group 1 (BOD): 30 days: 3.8 x 106 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 30 days: 4.3 x 106 CFU/ml. Group 1 (BOD): 180 days: 5.8 x 106 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 180 days: 7.1 x 107 CFU/ml. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent tests 30 days (P > 0.05) BOD (P=0.052) y BJOD (P=0.053) showed no different adherence. For 180 days (P < 0.05) BOD (P=0.000) y BJOD (P=0.000) presented different adhesion. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit.
Measured: Change from 30 to 180 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Aug 2017
- Study start5 Jan 2016
- Primary completion11 Jan 2017
- Study completion20 Jun 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (29)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AdhesivenessStudies 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
- The study presents the results of a sample of ten patients randomly assigned to receive implant-retained overdentures and divided into two parallel groups of five participants in a single-blind trial at a follow-up period of 30 - 180 days permanence in the mouth. Five overdentures were made for each group: Group 1: BOD: five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (BOD). Group 2: BJOD: five systems ball joint Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany, Andorra were used in two parallel groups of five participants, in an essay to simple blind person.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Gastrovital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Valenzuela-Narváez Rocío Violeta, Gastrovital
- Investigators
- Rocío Violeta Valenzuela-Narváez, PhD DDS, Principal investigator, CONCYTEC
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03256409
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Gastrovital&Development
- Status last verified
- Aug 2017
- First submitted
- 18 Jul 2017
- Last updated
- 22 Aug 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Stellingsma K, Slagter AP, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ. Masticatory function in patients with an extremely resorbed mandible restored with mandibular implant-retained overdentures: comparison of three types of treatment protocols. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Jun;32(6):403-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01242.x.
PubMed 15899018Portmann M, Glauser R. Report of a case receiving full-arch rehabilitation in both jaws using immediate implant loading protocols: a 1-year resonance frequency analysis follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006;8(1):25-31. doi: 10.2310/j.6480.2005.00027.x.
PubMed 16681490Visser A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;19(3):271-8.
PubMed 16752625Degidi M, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded bar-connected implants with an anodized surface inserted in the anterior mandible in a patient treated with diphosphonates for osteoporosis: a case report with a 12-month follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(4):269-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00210.x.
PubMed 15127998Elsyad MA, Ashmawy TM, Faramawy AG. The influence of resilient liner and clip attachments for bar-implant-retained mandibular overdentures on opposing maxillary ridge. A 5-year randomised clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Jan;41(1):69-77. doi: 10.1111/joor.12120. Epub 2013 Dec 20.
PubMed 24354686van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Dec;14(6):720-6. doi: 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00961.x.
PubMed 15015948Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Jul-Aug;16(4):381-4.
PubMed 12956492Panyayong W, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco TM, Brown DT, Hovijitra S. Reinforcement of acrylic resins for provisional fixed restorations. Part III: effects of addition of titania and zirconia mixtures on some mechanical and physical properties. Biomed Mater Eng. 2002;12(4):353-66.
PubMed 12652030Uzun G, Keyf F. The effect of fiber reinforcement type and water storage on strength properties of a provisional fixed partial denture resin. J Biomater Appl. 2003 Apr;17(4):277-86. doi: 10.1177/0885328203017004003.
PubMed 12797420Yap AU, Mah MK, Lye CP, Loh PL. Influence of dietary simulating solvents on the hardness of provisional restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2004 May;20(4):370-6. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.06.001.
PubMed 15019452Guler AU, Yilmaz F, Kulunk T, Guler E, Kurt S. Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Aug;94(2):118-24. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.004.
PubMed 16046965Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997 Jul;13(4):258-69. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3.
PubMed 11696906Berger JC, Driscoll CF, Romberg E, Luo Q, Thompson G. Surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins after processing and after polishing. J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;15(3):180-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00098.x.
PubMed 16681500Keyf F, Etikan I. Evaluation of gloss changes of two denture acrylic resin materials in four different beverages. Dent Mater. 2004 Mar;20(3):244-51. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00099-X.
PubMed 15209229Richmond R, Macfarlane TV, McCord JF. An evaluation of the surface changes in PMMA biomaterial formulations as a result of toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. Dent Mater. 2004 Feb;20(2):124-32. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00083-6.
PubMed 14706795
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Aug 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Bar and Ball Joint Overdentures Surface Roughness and Microbial Adherence
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03256409
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Gastrovital&Development
- Conditions
- Adhesiveness
- Keywords
- biomaterials, methacrylates, microbiology, implant dentistry/implantology, removable prosthodontics, clinical studies/trials
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- GastrovitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Jan 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 11 Jan 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Jun 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Aug 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.
The aim of the study was to compare the surface roughness (Ra) of the implant retained mandibular bar overdenture (BOD) and the implant retained mandibular ball joint overdenture (BJOD) in jaw and its relation with the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe, in time 30 to 180 days in mouth. Five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (BOD); and five systems joint ball Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany; Andorra (BJOD), were used in two parallel groups of five participants, in an essay to simple blind person. To 30 to 180 days they were withdrawn and they were evaluated the Ra (Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan) and the adhesion of microorganisms (CFU/ml).
The Ra:um (the 30th and 180th): BOD, 0.965 - 1.351; BJOD, 1.325 - 2.384. Adhesion: molds and yeasts, BOD, 2.6 x 102 and 4.6 x 103; BJOD, 3.0 x 102 and 5.3 x 104. Adhesion: mesophyll aerobe, BOD, 3.8 x 106 and 5.8 x 106; BJOD, 4.3 x 106 and 7.1 x 107. The BOD and BJOD, present different Ra (P < 0.05) to 30 to 180 days. To 30 days (P = 0.489) differences do not exist as regards the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe between both overdentures. To 180 days (P = 0.723) differences exist as regards the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe, being major in BJOD.
Detailed description
Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe to BOD and BJOD, Surface roughness (Ra), and Statistical Analyses Microbial populations have been controlled in the saliva at initial time and adherence at 30 to 180 days after the overdentures in the mouth. The saliva sample was obtained from the patient in a sterile sputum collection bottle through a sterile solution. The overdenture samples were extracted and processed for analysis. Each sample was submerged in ¼ sterile Ringer and subjected to vigorous ultrasound shaking. From each of the microbial suspensions, successive dilutions were made to determine the total number of viable microorganisms present. Total count of mold and yeast and total count of mesophyll aerobe were performed.
The surface roughness of BOD and BJOD was determined with the rugosimeter the Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® (Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan), through a displacement force of 4mN and of the tray to 0.5 mm/s and back to 1 mm/s (Murtra and Arcís,1999). The roughness profile Ra was evaluated and determined in microns (ųm) through five readings for each of the samples in the study respectively.
The results of BOD and BJOD were compared for the determination of Ra and the adherence of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe. For this, we used the statistics Shapiro-Wilk, T and the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to determinate the relationship between the study variables.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The study presents the results of a sample of ten patients randomly assigned to receive implant-retained overdentures and divided into two parallel groups of five participants in a single-blind trial at a follow-up period of 30 - 180 days permanence in the mouth. Five overdentures were made for each group: Group 1: BOD: five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (BOD). Group 2: BJOD: five systems ball joint Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany, Andorra were used in two parallel groups of five participants, in an essay to simple blind person.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Five Bar overdenture: BOD | Experimental | Other: Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe, Other: Surface Roughness (Ra)Five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (Bar overdenture: Group 1) For the manufacture of the overdentures it was used as material of choice Lucitone 199® (Dentsply International Inc. York, PA) and for the adaptation of the retention systems it was used Softreliner Tough Soft® Tocuyama Dental Corporation Inc., Japan. The working protocol for determining the BOD Ra and the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobics was carried out entirely by an investigator. Patients were randomly assigned to group 1. The BOD were removed at 30 - 180 days for surface roughness evaluation (Ra:ųm) and the evaluation of the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe (CFU/ml). |
| Five Ball Joint Overdenture: BJOD | Experimental | Other: Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe, Other: Surface Roughness (Ra)Five systems ball joint Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany, Andorra (Ball Joint Overdenture: Group 2) For the manufacture of the overdentures it was used as material of choice Lucitone 199® (Dentsply International Inc. York, PA) and for the adaptation of the retention systems it was used Softreliner Tough Soft® Tocuyama Dental Corporation Inc., Japan. The working protocol for determining the BJOD Ra and the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobics was carried out entirely by an investigator. Patients were randomly assigned to group 2. The s BJOD were removed at 30 - 180 days for surface roughness evaluation (Ra:ųm) and the evaluation of the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe (CFU/ml). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Total edentulous mandible from 50 to 60 years of age
- Absence of systemic conditions.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Hyperplasia and history of periodontal disease
- Patients with local and/or systemic antimicrobial treatment within 72 hours prior to evaluation during the study
- Signs of severe oral parafunction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobeAlso: Five BOD and Five BJODAdherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe to BOD and BJOD Microbial populations have been controlled in the saliva at initial time and adherence at 30 - 180 days after the overdentures in the mouth. The saliva sample was obtained from the patient in a sterile sputum collection bottle through a sterile solution. The overdenture samples were extracted and processed for analysis. Each sample was submerged in ¼ sterile Ringer and subjected to vigorous ultrasound shaking. From each of the microbial suspensions, successive dilutions were made to determine the total number of viable microorganisms present. Total count of mold and yeast and total count of mesophyll aerobe were performed. | Other | Five Ball Joint Overdenture: BJOD, Five Bar overdenture: BOD |
| Surface Roughness (Ra)Also: Five BOD and Five BJODThe surface roughness of BOD and BJOD was determined with the rugosimeter the Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® (Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan), through a displacement force of 4mN and of the tray to 0.5 mm/s and back to 1 mm/s (Murtra and Arcís,1999). The roughness profile Ra was evaluated and determined in microns (ųm) through five readings for each of the samples in the study respectively. | Other | Five Ball Joint Overdenture: BJOD, Five Bar overdenture: BOD |
Primary outcome
Average values of surface roughness (Ra) and correlation of independent test in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) 30 - 180 days.
Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days
The average Ra Group 1: BOD titanium bar CARES® and synOcta Straumann® in 30 days: 0.965um. In 180 days: 1.351um. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent test (P < 0.05) 30 days (P= 0.000) and 180 days (P=0.001) determined different Ra. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit.
Average values of surface roughness (Ra) and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days.
Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days
The average Ra Group 2: BJOD Klockner® in 30 days: 1.325um. 180 days: 2.384 um. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent test (P < 0.05) 30 days (P=0.000) and 180 days (P=0.000) determined different Ra. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit.
2 secondary outcomes
Average values of mold and yeast adhesion and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) and implant-retained mandibular ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days
Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days
Average values of mesophyll aerobe adhesion and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) and implant-retained mandibular ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days
Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Aug 2017.
- Results publication: PubMed 15899018Stellingsma K, Slagter AP, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ. Masticatory function in patients with an extremely resorbed mandible restored with mandibular implant-retained overdentures: comparison of three types of treatment protocols. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Jun;32(6):403-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01242.x.
- Results publication: PubMed 16681490Portmann M, Glauser R. Report of a case receiving full-arch rehabilitation in both jaws using immediate implant loading protocols: a 1-year resonance frequency analysis follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006;8(1):25-31. doi: 10.2310/j.6480.2005.00027.x.
- Results publication: PubMed 16752625Visser A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;19(3):271-8.
- Results publication: PubMed 15127998Degidi M, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded bar-connected implants with an anodized surface inserted in the anterior mandible in a patient treated with diphosphonates for osteoporosis: a case report with a 12-month follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(4):269-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00210.x.
- Results publication: PubMed 24354686Elsyad MA, Ashmawy TM, Faramawy AG. The influence of resilient liner and clip attachments for bar-implant-retained mandibular overdentures on opposing maxillary ridge. A 5-year randomised clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Jan;41(1):69-77. doi: 10.1111/joor.12120. Epub 2013 Dec 20.
- Results publication: PubMed 15015948van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Dec;14(6):720-6. doi: 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00961.x.
- Results publication: PubMed 12956492Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Jul-Aug;16(4):381-4.
- Results publication: PubMed 12652030Panyayong W, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco TM, Brown DT, Hovijitra S. Reinforcement of acrylic resins for provisional fixed restorations. Part III: effects of addition of titania and zirconia mixtures on some mechanical and physical properties. Biomed Mater Eng. 2002;12(4):353-66.
- Results publication: PubMed 12797420Uzun G, Keyf F. The effect of fiber reinforcement type and water storage on strength properties of a provisional fixed partial denture resin. J Biomater Appl. 2003 Apr;17(4):277-86. doi: 10.1177/0885328203017004003.
- Results publication: PubMed 15019452Yap AU, Mah MK, Lye CP, Loh PL. Influence of dietary simulating solvents on the hardness of provisional restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2004 May;20(4):370-6. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.06.001.
- Results publication: PubMed 16046965Guler AU, Yilmaz F, Kulunk T, Guler E, Kurt S. Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Aug;94(2):118-24. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.004.
- Results publication: PubMed 11696906Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997 Jul;13(4):258-69. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
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.
Rocío Violeta Valenzuela-Narváez, PhD DDS principal investigator
CONCYTEC
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe and Surface Roughness (Ra) in people with Adhesiveness, run by Gastrovital.
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 2 inclusion and 3 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Aug 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Average values of surface roughness (Ra) and correlation of independent test in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) 30 - 180 days. (time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT03256409, which also lists 29 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 22 Aug 2017; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.