Dental Implant FailedNCT04481867
Patient Perception and Radiographic Assessment of Sinus Lifting Procedure
A study testing densah bur in people with Dental Implant Failed, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical complications that might be presented with osteotome and densah burs, as well as to assess the new bone generated at 6 months post-operatively using CBCT. The study hypothesis was that densah bur would show comparable results to osteotome-mediated sinus lifting Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 to 55 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Implant Failed
- What is being tested?
- densah bur
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 10 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2019to 1 Jul 2020
- 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 25 to 55 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- the residual bone height at the site of implant placement was 8 mm or less. All patients were in a good health, non-smokers with no systemic, immunologic or debilitating diseases that could affect normal bone healing. Their edentulous ridges were covered with optimal thickness of mucoperiosteum with no signs of inflammation, ulceration or scar tissue and sufficient inter arch space was adequate for future prosthesis
Who cannot join
- smokers bad oral hygiene systemic disease
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Patient Perception and Radiographic Assessment of Sinus Lifting Procedure Using Densah Bur Versus Ostetome . A Randomized Clinical Trial
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical complications that might be presented with osteotome and densah burs, as well as to assess the new bone generated at 6 months post-operatively using CBCT. The study hypothesis was that densah bur would show comparable results to osteotome-mediated sinus lifting
Read the detailed description
Maxillary posterior edentulous area rehabilitation with implants is usually not an easy procedure and is considered a challenge to many prosthodontists. This is due to pneumatization of the maxillary sinus, poor bone density and volume, and difficult accessibility of this area. After tooth loss, the maxillary sinus tends to enlarge into the remaining residual ridge because of poor bone density and lack of functional stimulation by teeth.1 Rehabilitation with dental implants in the maxillary posterior area depends on the quantity and quality of bone available for implant placement. In order to place the implant in the best prosthetic position, regenerative surgical techniques are usually essential to correct the initial anatomical situation.2 Summer in 1994 introduced a less invasive technique than the lateral approach for sinus floor elevation, called the closed sinus lifting. Summer classified it in to osteotome sinus floor elevation and bone added osteotome sinus floor elevation. Osteotome depends on condensing the bone in implant bed site and pushing it laterally and upward, which raises the sinus floor. Although being successful and non-invasive, Summer's technique showed several surgical problems as heat generation-induced necrosis if not well irrigated, and delayed implant secondary stability, as well as some patient-related drawbacks as headache and vertigo.3 Fortunately, in 2014 Salah Huwais introduced new burs called densah burs that help preservation of bone health by condensing bone rather than removing it. Accordingly, this process was labeled osseodensification. In the past few years since the introduction of densah burs, limited number of studies evaluated its efficiency as well as patient perception to the procedure. 4 It is well established that cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) gives more profound and accurate assessment of pre- and post-operative implant sites. However, a meta-analysis was published in 2018 showed that most previous studies on lifting procedures used conventional 2D techniques, and very few applied CBCT as the diagnostic modality. This heterogeneity highly affected the quality of evidence retrieved. 5 This study aimed to validate the clinical complications that might be presented with osteotome and densah burs, as well as to assess the new bone generated at 6 months post-operatively using CBCT. The study hypothesis was that densah bur would show comparable results to osteotome-mediated sinus lifting.
- Conditions
- Dental Implant Failed
- Being tested
- densah bur
- Keywords
- Sinus lifting, CBCT
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
densah burProcedure or surgery
osseodensification densah bur
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| intervention arm :densah bur group | Active comparator | at the maxillary molar area for implant placement ,,just after making initial drilling perforation close to the sinus floor, the direction of the drill is reversed and the cutting speed is raised to 1200 rpm, then 2 successive densah burs are used to elevate sinus membrane 2 mm and to prepare implant hole to the selected implant size .for both groups the selected implant size, 4.2 mm width and 10 mm. length Receives: Procedure: densah bur |
| control group :osteotome group | Other | at the maxillary molar area for implant placement .a set of concave osteotomes with different dimensions sequentially used to widen the osteotomy site by surgical mallet. Osteotome 2.5 mm is inserted into the osteotomy firstly to a depth of 1 mm away from the sinus floor with light malleting by the nylon cap mallet then 3 mm osteotome is used to fracture up the sinus floor and finally 3.5 mm osteotome is tapped gently to elevate the sinus floor to the desired depth of the implant in the maxillary sinus. Receives: Procedure: densah bur |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Clinical patient perception
assessment with Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) questionnaire
Measured: 7 days postoperative
Secondary outcomes (1)
Radio-graphic (CBCT) assessment
New bone length around the implant ,in millimetre
Measured: preoperative and 6 month postoperative
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Jul 2020
- Study start1 Jul 2019
- Primary completion1 Apr 2020
- Study completion1 Jul 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dental Implant FailedStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cairo UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- randomized control trail
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Doaa Amr Heshmat, Cairo University
- Investigators
- Doaa A Heshmat, lecturer, Study director, faculty of dentistry ,Cairo Uni
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04481867
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- sinus lift densah bur
- Status last verified
- Jul 2020
- First submitted
- 13 Jul 2020
- Last updated
- 22 Jul 2020
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Almutairi AS, Walid MA, Alkhodary MA. The effect of osseodensification and different thread designs on the dental implant primary stability. F1000Res. 2018 Dec 5;7:1898. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17292.1. eCollection 2018.
PubMed 31131085Padhye NM, Padhye AM, Bhatavadekar NB. Osseodensification -- A systematic review and qualitative analysis of published literature. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020 Jan-Mar;10(1):375-380. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.10.002. Epub 2019 Nov 2.
PubMed 31737477
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Jul 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Patient Perception and Radiographic Assessment of Sinus Lifting Procedure Using Densah Bur Versus Ostetome . A Randomized Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04481867
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- sinus lift densah bur
- Conditions
- Dental Implant Failed
- Keywords
- Sinus lifting, CBCT
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Apr 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jul 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Jul 2020 (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.
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical complications that might be presented with osteotome and densah burs, as well as to assess the new bone generated at 6 months post-operatively using CBCT. The study hypothesis was that densah bur would show comparable results to osteotome-mediated sinus lifting
Detailed description
Maxillary posterior edentulous area rehabilitation with implants is usually not an easy procedure and is considered a challenge to many prosthodontists. This is due to pneumatization of the maxillary sinus, poor bone density and volume, and difficult accessibility of this area. After tooth loss, the maxillary sinus tends to enlarge into the remaining residual ridge because of poor bone density and lack of functional stimulation by teeth.1 Rehabilitation with dental implants in the maxillary posterior area depends on the quantity and quality of bone available for implant placement. In order to place the implant in the best prosthetic position, regenerative surgical techniques are usually essential to correct the initial anatomical situation.2 Summer in 1994 introduced a less invasive technique than the lateral approach for sinus floor elevation, called the closed sinus lifting. Summer classified it in to osteotome sinus floor elevation and bone added osteotome sinus floor elevation. Osteotome depends on condensing the bone in implant bed site and pushing it laterally and upward, which raises the sinus floor. Although being successful and non-invasive, Summer's technique showed several surgical problems as heat generation-induced necrosis if not well irrigated, and delayed implant secondary stability, as well as some patient-related drawbacks as headache and vertigo.3 Fortunately, in 2014 Salah Huwais introduced new burs called densah burs that help preservation of bone health by condensing bone rather than removing it. Accordingly, this process was labeled osseodensification. In the past few years since the introduction of densah burs, limited number of studies evaluated its efficiency as well as patient perception to the procedure. 4 It is well established that cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) gives more profound and accurate assessment of pre- and post-operative implant sites. However, a meta-analysis was published in 2018 showed that most previous studies on lifting procedures used conventional 2D techniques, and very few applied CBCT as the diagnostic modality. This heterogeneity highly affected the quality of evidence retrieved. 5 This study aimed to validate the clinical complications that might be presented with osteotome and densah burs, as well as to assess the new bone generated at 6 months post-operatively using CBCT. The study hypothesis was that densah bur would show comparable results to osteotome-mediated sinus lifting.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- randomized control trail
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| intervention arm :densah bur group | Active comparator | Procedure: densah burat the maxillary molar area for implant placement ,,just after making initial drilling perforation close to the sinus floor, the direction of the drill is reversed and the cutting speed is raised to 1200 rpm, then 2 successive densah burs are used to elevate sinus membrane 2 mm and to prepare implant hole to the selected implant size .for both groups the selected implant size, 4.2 mm width and 10 mm. length |
| control group :osteotome group | Other | Procedure: densah burat the maxillary molar area for implant placement .a set of concave osteotomes with different dimensions sequentially used to widen the osteotomy site by surgical mallet. Osteotome 2.5 mm is inserted into the osteotomy firstly to a depth of 1 mm away from the sinus floor with light malleting by the nylon cap mallet then 3 mm osteotome is used to fracture up the sinus floor and finally 3.5 mm osteotome is tapped gently to elevate the sinus floor to the desired depth of the implant in the maxillary sinus. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 to 55 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- the residual bone height at the site of implant placement was 8 mm or less. All patients were in a good health, non-smokers with no systemic, immunologic or debilitating diseases that could affect normal bone healing. Their edentulous ridges were covered with optimal thickness of mucoperiosteum with no signs of inflammation, ulceration or scar tissue and sufficient inter arch space was adequate for future prosthesis
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- smokers bad oral hygiene systemic disease
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 |
|---|---|---|
| densah burosseodensification densah bur | Procedure or surgery | control group :osteotome group, intervention arm :densah bur group |
Primary outcome
Clinical patient perception
Time frame: 7 days postoperative
assessment with Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) questionnaire
1 secondary outcome
Radio-graphic (CBCT) assessment
Time frame: preoperative and 6 month postoperative
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 Jul 2020.
- Results publication: PubMed 31131085Almutairi AS, Walid MA, Alkhodary MA. The effect of osseodensification and different thread designs on the dental implant primary stability. F1000Res. 2018 Dec 5;7:1898. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17292.1. eCollection 2018.
- Results publication: PubMed 31737477Padhye NM, Padhye AM, Bhatavadekar NB. Osseodensification -- A systematic review and qualitative analysis of published literature. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020 Jan-Mar;10(1):375-380. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.10.002. Epub 2019 Nov 2.
Related trials for Dental Implant Failed
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
Recruiting
Clinical Performance of Dual-cantilevered Single-implant Bridge
Dental Implant Failed
Active, not recruiting
Simultaneous Implant Placement With Vertical and Horizontal Bone Augmentation
Alveolar Bone Loss, Dental Implant Failed
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Short Implants Produced by Additive Manufacturing in the Posterior Jaws: 3 Years of Follow-up
Periodontal Diseases, Dental Implant Failed
Recruiting
Effect of Systemic Vitamin D on Dental Implant Osseointegration
Dental Implant, Dental Implant Failed
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.
Doaa A Heshmat, lecturer study director
faculty of dentistry ,Cairo Uni
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing densah bur in people with Dental Implant Failed, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.
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 1 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 22 Jul 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Egypt. 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?
Clinical patient perception (time frame: 7 days postoperative). 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 NCT04481867, 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 22 Jul 2020.