AzTrials
AzTrials

Partially Edentulous Maxilla, MandibleNCT03674762

Submerged vs. Nonsubmerged Single Laser-microgrooved Dental Implants.

A study testing Microgrooved dental implants in people with Partially Edentulous Maxilla, Mandible, run by University of Roma La Sapienza at 1 site in Italy.

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

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

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 80 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Partially Edentulous Maxilla, Mandible
What is being tested?
Microgrooved dental implants
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
20 participants
Where
1 siteItaly
Study dates
14 Sep 2018to 14 Sep 2018
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 18 to 80 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

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

Who cannot join

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

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Italy1 site

  • Universita la Sapienza

    Roma, 00100

Other trials in Italy

About this study

Official title: Submerged vs. Nonsubmerged Single Laser-microgrooved Implants. Clinical and Radiographic Results at 3-years of RCT With Split Mouth Design.

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

Read the detailed description

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

Being tested
Microgrooved dental implants
Keywords
submerged two-stage, nonsubmerged one-stage, dental implants, marginal bone loss

What participants receive

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

  • Microgrooved dental implantsDevice

    Dental Implant placement

Study groups in NCT03674762
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
dental implantsExperimentalmicrogrooved dental implants submerged
Receives: Device: Microgrooved dental implants
dentale implantsExperimentalmicrogrooved dental implants nonsubmerged
Receives: Device: Microgrooved dental implants

What is being measured

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

  1. radiographic marginal bone loss

    Measured: 3 years

Timeline

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

  1. First posted18 Sep 2018
  2. Study start14 Sep 2018
  3. Primary completion14 Sep 2018
  4. Study completion14 Sep 2018

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
Sequential
Model description
The cases were randomly divided into two groups as two-stage/submerged, and one-stage/nonsubmerged. Thus, in each patient, the two implants (submerged and nonsubmerged) were placed randomly in the left and right hemi-mandible or in the left and right hemi-maxilla
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
20 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03674762
Sponsor's protocol ID
4597
Status last verified
Sep 2018
First submitted
14 Sep 2018
Last updated
18 Sep 2018
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

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

  • Guarnieri R, Di Nardo D, Di Giorgio G, Miccoli G, Testarelli L. Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas. Int J Implant Dent. 2019 Dec 18;5(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0196-0.

    PubMed 31848762

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Microgrooved dental implants in people with Partially Edentulous Maxilla, Mandible, run by University of Roma La Sapienza at 1 site in Italy.

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 1 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 18 Sep 2018. 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 Italy. 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?

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?

radiographic marginal bone loss (time frame: 3 years). 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 NCT03674762, which also lists 2 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 18 Sep 2018.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

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