AzTrials
AzTrials

Tooth LossNCT03538184

Molecular Content of Peri-implant Sulcus During Wound Healing and Osseointegration Following Drilling and Piezosurgery

A study testing Piezosurgery and Drill in people with Tooth Loss and Edentulous Jaw, run by Ege University.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study aims to evaluate the levels of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) during healing and osseointegration at osteotomy sites prepared either with piezosurgery (PS) or drills (D). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 31 to 64 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Tooth Loss, Edentulous Jaw
What is being tested?
Piezosurgery and Drill
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
14 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
May 2013to Apr 2015
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 31 to 64 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Bilateral partial edentulism in posterior maxilla
  • >8 mm available bone height (distance between bone crest and maxillary sinus) and ≥7 mm bone width
  • At least 2 mm buccal keratinized mucosa width and 3 mm mucosa thickness.

Who cannot join

  • Diseases and conditions or medications which may negatively influence biological dynamics of bone and wound healing
  • Ridge deficiencies requiring additional augmentation
  • Indication of sinus lifting with crestal or lateral approach
  • Endodontic or periodontal lesions neighbouring the edentulous sites were anatomic exclusion criteria

About this study

Official title: Cytokine, Chemokine and Growth Factor Content of Peri-implant Sulcus During Wound Healing and Osseointegration After Conventional and Piezosurgical Implant Site Preparation

This study aims to evaluate the levels of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) during healing and osseointegration at osteotomy sites prepared either with piezosurgery (PS) or drills (D). Fourteen patients having bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla were enrolled and 38 osteotomies were prepared. Implants were placed with one-stage surgery. Insertion torque, early healing index, probing depth and modified gingival and plaque indices and crestal bone (CB) loss were measured. PISF was collected from 4 sites from each implant at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24. PISF samples were analysed by a 30-Plex immunoassay. Effect of time and osteotomy method on molecules employed Brunner-Langer method.

Read the detailed description

Surgical procedures Fourteen patients received 38 bone-level implants (4.1 mm diameter and 8 mm, 10 mm or 12 mm in length, Biodenta®, Bone Level Implant, Biodenta Swiss AG, Switzerland) Osteotomies were prepared with drills (drill group, control, n=19) on one side and with PS tips (piezosurgery group; test, n=19) on the contralateral side in a single session. Surgical, pre- and post-operative procedures were carried out as was previously described. Briefly, right side was always the first operated site where the osteotomies were prepared with one of the randomly selected methods. Toss of a coin at the beginning of the surgery by an independent examiner designated the random allocation and modality to be used on the right side of the patient. Left side received the other osteotomy modality. First a midcrestal incision was made and full-thickness flap was raised. Osteotomies were prepared in the drill group by marking the appropriate point with a trispade drill and then advancing the 2.0 mm pilot drill to the planned depth followed by 2.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 3.5 mm drills, respectively. In PS group osteotomies were prepared with PS device (Piezonmaster®, EMS SA, Switzerland) and its relevant tips (Swiss Instruments Surgery, Implant System, Switzerland). Initial tip with a 1.15 mm diameter was used along the predetermined depth to create a pilot osteotomy. Then the osteotomy was widened to a final diameter of 3.5 mm by using 1.95 mm, 2.5 mm, 2.8 mm, 3.05 mm and 3.3 mm tips, respectively. Intermediate and final diameters, depth and direction of the osteotomies were controlled in both groups with drill try-ins, which also function as paralleling pins. Bone taps or crestal drills were not used for final contouring in both groups. Then 4.1 mm-diameter implants were placed equicrestally by a handpiece at a speed of 15 rpm in both groups and insertion torque was recorded. Following transfer abutment removal, 4.0 mm diameter straight healing abutments were connected for non-submerged healing and flaps were stabilized with 5.0 polypropylene interrupted sutures. Patients were instructed to rinse with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate for 2 weeks and to abstain from brushing the surgery site for this period and not to chew on the healing abutments. They were prescribed 200 mg ibuprofen t.i.d for 1 week. The sutures were removed at 2nd week following the surgery.

Clinical and radiological procedures A single examiner performed clinical measurements. Modified gingival (MGI) and plaque indices (MPI) were taken on weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 from 4 points around each implant with a plastic probe (UNC 12 Colorvue probe, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL). Probing depth (PD) was measured on weeks 12 and 24 following surgery with the same probe type (Figure 3). Repeatability of the examiner for PD measurements was κw=0.88. Flap closure and its continuity were evaluated on days 7 and 14 by early healing index (EHI), which had been originally described for postoperative monitoring of regenerative procedures for intrabony defects.

Crestal bone level measurements were performed as previously described. In brief, radiographic images were obtained by cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) (Kodak 9000 3D, Practice Works, Inc., Atlanta, USA) on the day of surgery and at week 24. Standardized periapical radiographs were obtained at week 12 using a photostimulable phosphor plate with position holders (Rinn XCP, Dentsply International) and the long-cone paralleling technique. Images were digitalized by a photostimulable phosphor plate scanner (Digora® Optime, Soredex, USA).

CB levels on radiographic images were measured with a Java-based software (Image-J 3.0, NIH, Bethesda, USA) by a masked and calibrated examiner (GPT; Cronbach's alpha=0.99). Implant shoulder (IS), first bone to implant contact (fBIC), implant abutment interface and apex of the implant were used as reference points. Mean of triple measurements rounded to the nearest 0.01 mm were used. CB loss was recorded by measuring the IS-fBIC distance on periapical radiograms at week 12 and on CBCT sections at week 24.

Biochemical procedures Postoperative PISF samples were obtained from 4 aspects of implants on weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24. Sites were isolated by cotton rolls and visible supramucosal plaque was removed from healing abutment surfaces with a fiber carbon curette before sampling. Following gentle air-drying, paper strips (Periopaper, ProFlow, Amityville, NY, USA) were inserted 1 mm into the crevice and left in place for 30 s. Care was taken to avoid mechanical injury. The PISF volume absorbed on each strip was then determined by means of an electronic impedance device (Periotron 8000, ProFlow, Inc., Amityville, NY, USA), and all four were pooled into a sterile polypropylene tube which was previously coded to ensure masking of the laboratory technician and kept at -40C until analysed. The readings from the Periotron 8000 were converted to volume (µl) by reference to the standard curve. The collected PISF samples were eluted in 450 µl phosphate buffer saline (PBS, pH 7.2) in the presence of EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail ( Roche Applied Science, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and centrifuged at 2000 x g for 15 min, at 4C. The levels of the molecules under investigation in the eluted PISF samples were determined by the cytokine human magnetic 30-Plex panel (Novex®, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) consisting of cytokines (G-CSF, GM-CSF, IFNα, IFNγ, IL1β, IL1RA, IL2, IL2R, IL4, IL5, IL6, IL7, IL8, IL10, IL12 (p40/p70), IL13, IL15, IL17, TNFα), chemokines (Eotaxin, CXCL10, MCP1, MIG, MIP1α, MIP1β, RANTES) and growth factors (EGF, FGF-basic, HGF, VEGF), on the Luminex®200 platform. Bead fluorescence readings were done by Luminex®200 and analyzed using a software (xPONENT®, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

Data analysis A statistician who was blinded to the groups performed data analysis using non-parametrical methods. Implants were used as the unit of analysis. Clinical and radiological parameters served as primary outcome variables.The secondary outcome variable was selected as cytokine, chemokine and growth factor levels. Both primary and secondary outcomes were tested with Brunner and Langer method LDF2 model using a software (R software, version 3.3.1, package: nparLD, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; r-project.org). The following hypothesis was tested: "Changes in PISF cytokine, chemokine and growth factor levels are dependent on preparation method of osteotomy (piezosurgery vs drilling) and time after surgery".

Week 2 values of RANTES in study groups were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. RANTES values of groups at weeks 4, 8, 12 and 24 which were calculated as the difference from week 2 values were compared with Bonferroni corrected Mann-Whitney U test. EHI scores were compared with McNemar-Bowker chi-square test. Examiner calibration was assessed by weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient methods for PD and radiological CB loss measurements, respectively with a statistical software (SPSS 20.0, SPSS for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).

Significance level was set at 5% for all analyses. Required sample size was calculated using a software28 (G*Power 3.1, version 3.1.9.2) estimating a power of 80%, p-value of 5% in study groups for one-tailed test of matched pairs. Sample size calculation analysis suggested at least 18 implants for both groups.

Being tested
Piezosurgery, Drill
Medical subject headings
Tooth Loss, Jaw, Edentulous

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • PiezosurgeryProcedure or surgery

    Preparation of implant beds entirely with piezo surgery implant tips

  • DrillProcedure or surgery

    Preparation of implant beds entirely with conventional implant drills

Study groups in NCT03538184
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
PiezosurgeryExperimentalOsteotomy preparation entirely with piezosurgery tips and equicrestal placement of a 4.1 mm implant in the piezosurgery (test) group were performed as follows: 1.15 mm initial MB1 tip, 1.95 mm MB2 tip, control of depth, diameter and direction of osteotomy with 2.0 mm paralleling pin, 2.5 mm MB3 tip, 2.8 mm MB4 tip, 2.8 mm paralleling pin, 3.05 mm MB5 tip, 3.3 mm MB6 tip, control of final diameter of the osteotomy with 3.5 mm paralleling pin, placement of the 4.1 mm diameter implant and connection of a 4 mm-wide healing abutment.
Receives: Procedure: Piezosurgery
DrillActive comparatorPreparation of an implant recipient site entirely with relevant drills were performed as follows: Osteotomy preparation and equicrestal placement of a 4.1 mm diameter implant in the drill (control) group were performed as follows: initial trispade drill, 2.0 mm pilot drill, control of depth, diameter and direction of osteotomy with 2.0 mm paralleling pin, 2.5 mm drill, 2.8 mm drill, 2.8 mm paralleling pin, 3.5 mm drill, control of final diameter of the osteotomy with 3.5 mm paralleling pin, placement of the 4.1 mm diameter implant and connection of a 4 mm wide healing abutment.
Receives: Procedure: Drill

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Radiological bone levels at 12th and 24th weeks (Change from Baseline)

    Bone Loss (measured distance from implant shoulder to first bone to implant contact on periodical radiographs and computerised cone beam tomography

    Measured: Baseline (implant placement), 12th and 24th weeks after implant placement

Secondary outcomes (26)
  1. IL-1beta content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  2. G.CSF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  3. IL-13 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  4. IL-6 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  5. IL-12 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  6. IL-17 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  7. IL-15 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  8. IL-5 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  9. IFN gamma content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  10. IFN alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  11. IL-1Ra alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  12. IL-2 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  13. IL-7 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  14. IL-2R alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  15. IL-4 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  16. IL-8 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    cytokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  17. RANTES alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    chemokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  18. MIP-1alpha alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    chemokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  19. MIP-1beta alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    chemokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  20. MCP-1 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    chemokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  21. MIG content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    chemokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  22. IP-10 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    chemokine

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  23. FGF-b content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    growth factor

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  24. EGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    growth factor

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  25. HGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    growth factor

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

  26. VEGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)

    growth factor

    Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted29 May 2018
  2. Study startMay 2013
  3. Primary completionFeb 2014
  4. Study completionApr 2015

Resources

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
Double blind
Who is masked
Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
14 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03538184
Sponsor's protocol ID
BAP 2013 Dent 009
Status last verified
May 2018
First submitted
13 Apr 2018
Last updated
29 May 2018
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Jun;14(3):251-62. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00972.x.

    PubMed 12755774
  • Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Welander M, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Morphogenesis of the peri-implant mucosa: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Feb;18(1):1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01380.x.

    PubMed 17224016
  • Tomasi C, Tessarolo F, Caola I, Wennstrom J, Nollo G, Berglundh T. Morphogenesis of peri-implant mucosa revisited: an experimental study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Sep;25(9):997-1003. doi: 10.1111/clr.12223. Epub 2013 Jun 26.

    PubMed 23799997
  • Tomasi C, Tessarolo F, Caola I, Piccoli F, Wennstrom JL, Nollo G, Berglundh T. Early healing of peri-implant mucosa in man. J Clin Periodontol. 2016 Oct;43(10):816-24. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12591. Epub 2016 Jul 28.

    PubMed 27329966
  • Insua A, Monje A, Wang HL, Miron RJ. Basis of bone metabolism around dental implants during osseointegration and peri-implant bone loss. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Jul;105(7):2075-2089. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36060. Epub 2017 Mar 28.

    PubMed 28281321
  • Esteves JC, Marcantonio E Jr, de Souza Faloni AP, Rocha FR, Marcantonio RA, Wilk K, Intini G. Dynamics of bone healing after osteotomy with piezosurgery or conventional drilling - histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis. J Transl Med. 2013 Sep 23;11:221. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-221.

    PubMed 24053147
  • Preti G, Martinasso G, Peirone B, Navone R, Manzella C, Muzio G, Russo C, Canuto RA, Schierano G. Cytokines and growth factors involved in the osseointegration of oral titanium implants positioned using piezoelectric bone surgery versus a drill technique: a pilot study in minipigs. J Periodontol. 2007 Apr;78(4):716-22. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060285.

    PubMed 17397320
  • Peker Tekdal G, Bostanci N, Belibasakis GN, Gurkan A. The effect of piezoelectric surgery implant osteotomy on radiological and molecular parameters of peri-implant crestal bone loss: a randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May;27(5):535-44. doi: 10.1111/clr.12620. Epub 2015 Jun 16.

    PubMed 26077862
  • Bielemann AM, Marcello-Machado RM, Leite FRM, Martinho FC, Chagas-Junior OL, Antoninha Del Bel Cury A, Faot F. Comparison between inflammation-related markers in peri-implant crevicular fluid and clinical parameters during osseointegration in edentulous jaws. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):531-543. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2169-0. Epub 2017 Jul 14.

    PubMed 28710652
  • Chien HH, Meng HW, Gross AC, Eubank TD, Yildiz VO, Leblebicioglu B. The Effect of Platform Switching on Periimplant Crevicular Fluid Content During Early Wound Healing. Implant Dent. 2016 Oct;25(5):629-37. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000463.

    PubMed 27504534
  • Emecen-Huja P, Eubank TD, Shapiro V, Yildiz V, Tatakis DN, Leblebicioglu B. Peri-implant versus periodontal wound healing. J Clin Periodontol. 2013 Aug;40(8):816-24. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12127. Epub 2013 Jun 18.

    PubMed 23772674
  • Sculean A, Gruber R, Bosshardt DD. Soft tissue wound healing around teeth and dental implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S6-22. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12206.

    PubMed 24641001

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Piezosurgery and Drill in people with Tooth Loss and Edentulous Jaw, run by Ege University.

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 4 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 29 May 2018. 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?

Radiological bone levels at 12th and 24th weeks (Change from Baseline) (time frame: Baseline (implant placement), 12th and 24th weeks after implant placement). 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 NCT03538184, which also lists 12 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 29 May 2018.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in