AzTrials
AzTrials

Bone FormationNCT05753917

Piezo-surgery Versus Conventional Drills

A study testing Piezo-surgery insert OR Conventional Drills in people with Bone Formation, run by GBR Academy.

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

Purpose: The aim of this RCT was to evaluate and compare histomorphometric and immunohistochemical characteristics of peri-implant bone tissue after implant site preparation using piezoelectric tips versus conventional drills. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 60 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Bone Formation
What is being tested?
Piezo-surgery insert OR Conventional Drills
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
6 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
12 Dec 2016to 12 Dec 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 18 to 60 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

None listed.

Who cannot join

  • Previous bone augmentation of the sites to be treated;
  • poor oral hygiene;
  • smoking > 10 cigarettes/day;
  • abuse of alcohol or drugs;
  • pregnancy;
  • acute local or systemic infection;
Show all 13Show fewer
  • uncontrolled diabetes or other metabolic disease;
  • severe hepatic or renal dysfunction;
  • HIV, HBV, or HCV infection;
  • chemotherapy or radiotherapy within the past 5 years;
  • current immunosuppressive therapy;
  • an autoimmune disorder;
  • bisphosphonate therapy

About this study

Official title: Histomorphometric and Immunohistochemical Evaluation of Bone Healing Around Implants Placed Using Piezosurgery Versus Conventional Drills: a Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose: The aim of this RCT was to evaluate and compare histomorphometric and immunohistochemical characteristics of peri-implant bone tissue after implant site preparation using piezoelectric tips versus conventional drills. Material and Methods: A split-mouth protocol was carried out on 6 patients with bilateral partial edentulism. A total of 12 alveolar ridges were randomized into two groups: 6 control sites (Group B) with conventional drills preparation (Drill-group) and 6 test sites (Group A) treated by piezoelectric implant inserts preparation (Piezo-group). At 28 days after surgery (T1), in both group, one study-fixtures with 0.5 mm of peri-implant bone tissue were explanted and processed for the histological, histomorphometrical and immunoistochemical analysis. For each sample Inflammatory infiltrates, necrotic bone (Zone 1), woven and newly formed bone (Zone 2), native bone (Zone 3), CD31 (cluster of differentiation 31) and SATB2 (special AT-rich sequence-binding protein necrotic bone undergoing remodeling) were evaluated.

Read the detailed description

This was a pilot, parallel-group, doble-blinded, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.

The study included six patients with bilateral partial edentulism, having in total 12 maxillary or mandibular edentulous alveolar ridges. All patients had been referred to the Unit of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy.

The alveolar ridges were randomized into two groups using a computer-generated method: Group A included six regions where implant sites were prepared by piezosurgery, and Group B six regions prepared by conventional drilling.

Surgical and prosthetic protocol In Group A, all implant sites were prepared with a piezoelectric device with IM1, IM2, IM2-3, or IM3 piezo-inserts according to the manufacturer's protocol (Piezosurgery, Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco, Italy). One or two implants were placed in each edentulous ridge along with an additional 3.3 x 8.5 mm implant, termed a "study fixture", in an adjacent area. In Group B, all implant sites were prepared with conventional drills according to the manufacturer's protocol (Premium, Sweden \& Martina, Due Carrare, Padova, Italy); similarly to group A, one or two implants were placed in each edentulous ridge, and an additional 3.3 x 8.5 mm "study-fixture" was placed in the adjacent area.

After cover screw placement, a parallel periapical radiograph was taken and the flap was sutured with 4-0 Vicryl. After surgery, antibiotic therapy (1 g amoxicillin and clavulanic acid every 8 h for 4 days), analgesic therapy (nimesulid 200 mg/day for 2 days, continued if pain persisted), and antiseptic therapy (chlorhexidine 0.2% [w/v] three times daily), were prescribed.

  • Clinical procedure II - Re-entry Surgery At 28 days after surgery (T1), all "study-fixtures" in both groups were explanted using a trephine drill, taking care to explant the fixture with 0.5 mm of circumferential peri-implant bone tissue. The timing of re-entry surgery (T1) was fixed to be 28 days based on a previous animal study 12. All retrieved implants with bone tissue biopsies were fixed in 4% (v/v) formalin prior to histological analysis (Figure 7,8).
  • Clinical procedure III - Prosthetic restoration At 3 months after surgery (T2), a mid-crestal horizontal incisions of keratinized tissue, without vertical incisions, was performed to expose the submerged implants and place healing screws. One month later (T3), implant-supported, metal-ceramic fixed restorations were delivered to the patients to allow functional loading.
  • Data collection During surgery and at all postoperative visits (T0, T1, T2, and T3), clinical and radiographic data were recorded by a single operator (E.V.). Histological, histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical data were recorded on the same forms after bone biopsy and laboratory analyses (T1).
  • Laboratory data

All specimens were fully analyzed in terms of the percentages of necrotic bone area (NBA%) and newly-formed bone area (nFBA%), and the ratios of these values to total bone area (TBA). For each specimen, the authors identified three different areas proceeding from the surface of the fixture toward the border of the biopsy: zone 1, necrotic bone undergoing remodeling; zone 2, woven and newly formed bone; and zone 3, native bone. For each zone, we recorded:

  1. Absolute and relative areas: Zone areas were expressed as absolute values (mm2) and relative values (%) with respect to the total areas.
  2. Inflammatory infiltrates: The presence and type of inflammatory infiltrate (if present) was classified; we scored inflammation as absent (no inflammatory cells), minimal (< 5 cells/mm2), or present (> 5 cells/mm2).
  3. CD31 (a vascular endothelium differentiation and neo-osteogenesis marker): CD31 expression was recorded as the number of positive vessels/mm2
  4. SATB2 (a osteoblastic cell differentiation and osteogenesis marker): SATB2 expression was recorded as the number of positive spots/mm2.
Conditions
Bone Formation
Being tested
Piezo-surgery insert OR Conventional Drills
Keywords
piezo-surgery, Implant surgery, histological analysis, Conventional drills

What participants receive

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

  • Piezo-surgery insert OR Conventional DrillsDevice

    piezo-surgery: Group A (piezoelectric device with IM1, IM2, IM2-3, or IM3 piezo-inserts according to the manufacturer's protocol (Piezosurgery, Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco, Italy) Conventional drill: Group B (conventional drills according to the manufacturer's protocol (Premium, Sweden \& Martina, Due Carrare, Padova, Italy)

Study groups in NCT05753917
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Group AExperimentalpiezoelectric device with IM1, IM2, IM2-3, or IM3 piezo-inserts according to the manufacturer's protocol (Piezosurgery, Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco, Italy). One or two implants were placed in each edentulous ridge along with an additional 3.3 x 8.5 mm implant, termed a "study fixture", in an adjacent area
Receives: Device: Piezo-surgery insert OR Conventional Drills
Group BActive comparatorIn Group B, all implant sites were prepared with conventional drills according to the manufacturer's protocol (Premium, Sweden \& Martina, Due Carrare, Padova, Italy); similarly to group A, one or two implants were placed in each edentulous ridge, and an additional 3.3 x 8.5 mm "study-fixture" was placed in the adjacent area.
Receives: Device: Piezo-surgery insert OR Conventional Drills

What is being measured

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

  1. Zone 1 (necrotic bone undergoing remodeling)

    Hystological sections were screened at high magnification (400×), and areas of necrotic bone lacking live osteocytes were automatically outlined with a pointer and photographed using a digital Peltier-cooled camera (Q-color 3; resolution 1,376 x 1,032 pixels; Olympus). Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed on the central regions of each sample and Image J software (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to determine the presence and type of inflammatory infiltrate, and to quantify morphometric parameters. Value expressed as percentage

    Measured: after 28 days of healing

Secondary outcomes (4)
  1. Zone 2 (woven and newly formed bone)

    Hystological sections were screened at high magnification (400×), and areas of newly formed bone were automatically outlined with a pointer and photographed using a digital Peltier-cooled camera (Q-color 3; resolution 1,376 x 1,032 pixels; Olympus). Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed on the central regions of each sample and Image J software (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to determine the presence and type of inflammatory infiltrate, and to quantify morphometric parameters. Value expressed as percentage

    Measured: after 28 days of healing

  2. Zone 3 (native bone)

    Hystological sections were screened at high magnification (400×), and areas of native bone were automatically outlined with a pointer and photographed using a digital Peltier-cooled camera (Q-color 3; resolution 1,376 x 1,032 pixels; Olympus). Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed on the central regions of each sample and Image J software (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to determine the presence and type of inflammatory infiltrate, and to quantify morphometric parameters. Value expressed as percentage

    Measured: after 28 days of healing

  3. CD31 (marker of vascular endothelium differentiation and neo-osteogenesis)

    An automated microscope running "dot slide" software (Olympus Europa SE \& Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany) was used to scan all CD31 immunostained slides at 10× magnification to obtain VSI (Virtual Slide Image) files, and the numbers of cells positive for CD31 were counted. CD31 expression was recorded as the number of positive spots/mm2

    Measured: after 28 days of healing

  4. SATB2

    An automated microscope running "dot slide" software (Olympus Europa SE \& Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany) was used to scan all SATB2 immunostained slides at 10× magnification to obtain VSI (Virtual Slide Image) files, and the numbers of cells positive for SATB2 were counted. SATB2 expression was recorded as the number of positive spots/mm2

    Measured: after 28 days of healing

Timeline

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

  1. First posted3 Mar 2023
  2. Study start12 Dec 2016
  3. Primary completion12 Dec 2019
  4. Study completion12 Dec 2020

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
Model description
Pilot, parallel-group, single-blinded, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
6 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT05753917
Sponsor's protocol ID
16053
Status last verified
Apr 2023
First submitted
23 Feb 2023
Last updated
28 Apr 2023
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Access to the Trial IPD can be requested by qualified researchers engaged in independent scientific research and will be provided following review and approval of a Research Proposal and Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) and execution of a data sharing agreement (DSA). For more information or to submit a request, please contact dr.cucchi@hotmail.com

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Piezo-surgery insert OR Conventional Drills in people with Bone Formation, run by GBR Academy.

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 0 inclusion and 13 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 28 Apr 2023. 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?

Zone 1 (necrotic bone undergoing remodeling) (time frame: after 28 days of healing). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 28 Apr 2023.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in