EdentulousNCT06679894
Evaluation of Implant Stability Changes in Sites Prepared with Different Osseodensification Techniques: a Prospective Observational Clinical Study
An observational study of Edentulous and Alveolar Process Atrophy, run by International Piezosurgery Academy at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
The goal of this observational study is to compare, within a cohort of patients requiring rehabilitation in two different sites of the premolar area in the upper maxilla, the primary and secondary stability of implants placed in sites prepared using a magnetic mallet and osseodensification burs. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Edentulous, Alveolar Process Atrophy
- What is being tested?
- Implant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified mallet and Implant site preparation with osseodensification drills
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 12 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 15 Feb 2024to 5 Nov 2024
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: After investigating general and local anamnesis, which included evaluation of systemic illnesses and potential allergies, a dental visit was conducted to formulate a specific treatment plan. If the patient was deemed eligible for the research protocol, an additional periapical radiograph was obtained for each selected site to assess the adequacy of residual bone height. If the available bone height appeared to be sufficient, a second-level radiographic exam, a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), was performed to evaluate whether the bone volume was adequate for supporting implant rehabilitation. For patients requiring tooth extraction, this second assessment was performed after six months of healing after extraction.
Who may be able to join
- Age older than 18 years old;
- Indication for an implant-supported rehabilitation in the upper premolar / first molar areas;
- The area in which the implants will be placed must have had at least 6 months of healing;
- No use of grafts or bone substitutes following tooth extraction;
- Bone volume measuring at least 10 mm in height and 6 mm in width;
- In case of two adjacent implants the distance between the natural teeth must be at least 14 mm, composed by twice the width of each implant (4 mm), the distance between them (at least 3 mm) and twice the distance between each teeth (at least 1,5 mm)
Show all 10Show fewer
- Bone quality belonging to class D3 or D4, following Misch classification
- Absence or decision to not wear a removable prosthesis during the healing period;
- Patients with good and stable oral hygiene;
- Signed informed consent form.
Who cannot join
- Acute myocardial infarction within the previous six months;
- Uncontrolled bleeding disorders;
- Uncontrolled diabetes (HBA1c > 7.5%);
- Radiotherapy in the head-neck area in the previous 48 months;
- Immunocompromised patients (es. AIDS / chemotherapy);
- Current or previous treatment with antiresorptive drugs via intravenous injection;
Show all 12Show fewer
- Psychological or psychiatric disease;
- Alcohol and /or drugs abuse;
- Heavy smokers (more than 10 cigarettes / day);
- Plaque index >20% and/or bleeding on probing >10%
- Pregnant or breastfeeding patients;
- Patients refusing to participate in follow-up checks.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The goal of this observational study is to compare, within a cohort of patients requiring rehabilitation in two different sites of the premolar area in the upper maxilla, the primary and secondary stability of implants placed in sites prepared using a magnetic mallet and osseodensification burs.
Read the detailed description
The primary outcome measures included implant primary stability, assessed through insertion torque and ISQ (Implant Stability Quotient).
Secondary outcome measures were implant secondary stability pattern during the initial 90 days post-implant placement (ISQ), implant survival after one year, the time required for each implant site preparation and any complications or adverse events.
As an additional outcome of this study, we aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between the instrument utilized for implant site preparation and early marginal bone loss. Marginal bone levels were measured at three time points: immediately after surgery (T0), upon delivery of prosthetic rehabilitation (T1), and after one year of loading (T2). The distance between implant platform and bone crest was measured at each time interval, on both mesial and distal aspects of the implant. A positive value was assigned when the bone crest was coronal to the implant platform, whereas a negative value was assigned when the bone crest was apical to the implant platform.
Study design: Observational study of a prospective non-profit cohort.
Study population: The study will be conducted in an outpatient hospital setting.
Sample size calculation: Data from the literature were used regarding insertion torque with the use of the magnetic mallet and osseodensification burs. On average, these data ranged from 50 to 70 Ncm for the magnetic mallet and 35 to 59 Ncm for the osseodensification burs. Using a statistical power of 80%, an alpha error of 0.05, and a beta error of 0.2, the sample size was calculated to be six patients for the experimental group (magnetic mallet - MM) and six patients for the control group (osseodensification burs - OD).
Enrollment procedure: All patients who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be enrolled in the study following the administration of the Information Sheet and the acquisition of informed consent.
Patients seeking implant-supported rehabilitation due to the absence of at least two teeth were evaluated with a periapical radiograph at each selected site to assess the adequacy of residual bone height. If the available bone height appeared to be sufficient, a second-level radiographic exam, a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), was performed to evaluate whether the bone volume was adequate for supporting implant rehabilitation.
Surgical phase: After performing local anaesthesia (mepivacaine HCl 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated. The surgeon, who conducted all the procedures, initiated the first implant site preparation using osteotomes and electrified mallet (Magnetic Mallet, Metaergonomica, Milan, Italy) (test group).
Meanwhile, a second operator began timing the duration of surgery from the initial bone contact of the first osteotome to the placement of the implant.
All the procedures strictly followed the manufacturer's recommendations: initially, a pilot osteotome (100-P) was used. Osteotomes with gradually increasing diameters were employed until the final diameter of 3.2 mm was reached. Subsequently, a 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.
Right after the suture of the first surgical site, the site preparation of the control group began.
After performing local anaesthesia (mepivacaine HCl 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated; the surgeon initiated the preparation using osseodensification burs (Densah, Versah, Jackson, USA). Another operator started timing at the beginning of the procedure and concluded when the implant was placed in the final position.
The experimental sites were prepared using osseodensification burs (Densah, Versah) at a rotation speed of 1200 rpm. The implant beds were equal in dimension and diameter to those prepared with the magnetic hammer, 8.5 mm in height and 3.2 mm in diameter. Subsequently, a 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.
After surgery, a radiographic control was conducted to evaluate the correct positioning of the implants.
Once completed, a blinded operator measured ISQ values of each implant from two different directions: vestibular-palatal and mesio-distal.
Each measurement was taken at abutment level three times for each direction, and their averages were used for the statistical analysis.
The values were collected using a Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) device (Osstell, Göteborg, Sweden) with the appropriate transducer for the selected abutment (Smartpeg # 74, Osstell, Göteborg, Sweden).
After surgery, a check-up visit was scheduled after one week, when the sutures were removed, soft tissue healing was evaluated, and ISQ was measured as in the first time.
The subsequent check-ups were scheduled at 14 days, 21 days, 28 days, 60 days, 90 days and in each meeting, the same parameters were re-evaluated.
All the implants were restored with screw-retained single metal-ceramic crowns four months after surgery and then followed up for at least for 12 months after prosthetic loading. Two additional check-ups were scheduled for radiographic control after 6 months and 1 year.
Statistical plan: The statistical analysis will be performed by means of a computerized statistical package (SigmaStat 3.5, SPSS Inc., Germany). The data will be expressed as mean ± standard deviation and median (interquartile range), respectively, for parametric and non-parametric values.
- Conditions
- Edentulous, Alveolar Process Atrophy
- Being tested
- Implant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified mallet, Implant site preparation with osseodensification drills
- Medical subject headings
- Mouth, Edentulous, Alveolar Bone Loss
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Implant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified malletProcedure or surgery
Under local anesthesia (mepivacaine HCL 2% with epinephrine1:100.000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar crest.
A pilot osteotome (100-P) was used to easily perforate the cortical plate. Subsequently, osteotomes with gradually increasing diameters were employed until the final diameter of 3.2 mm was reached.
The sequence of osteotomes and their respective diameters were as follows:
- Osteotome 100-P: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 2.2 mm;
- Osteotome 160: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 2.8 mm;
- Osteotome 200: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 3.2 mm. Implant (4.0x8.5 mm; Anyridge, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was positioned using a surgical motor.
A 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm.
Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.
Implant site preparation with osseodensification drillsProcedure or surgery
Under local anesthesia (mepivacaine HCL 2% with epinephrine1:100.000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar crest.
The implant site preparation was realized using osseodensification burs at a rotation speed of 1200 rpm. The osseodensification burs sequence was as follows:
- Initial pilot hole (rotated clockwise);
- WT1828 bur (rotated counterclockwise),
- WT2838 bur (rotated counterclockwise). Implant (4.0x8.5 mm; Anyridge, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was positioned using a surgical motor.
A 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm.
Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Single tooth edentulism right | single missed teeth Receives: Procedure: Implant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified mallet | |
| single tooth edentulism left | single missed tooth Receives: Procedure: Implant site preparation with osseodensification drills |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Implant primary stability
Insertion torque
Measured: At implant insertion
Implant primary stability
Resonance frequency
Measured: At implant insertion
Secondary outcomes (7)
Implant secondary stability
Resonance frequency
Measured: 7 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Resonance frequency
Measured: 14 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Resonance frequency
Measured: 21 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Resonance frequency
Measured: 28 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Resonance frequency
Measured: 60 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Resonance frequency
Measured: 90 days after implant insertion
Surgical time
In seconds
Measured: The measurement began when the first pilot osteotome or drill was used and ended when the implant was placed.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Nov 2024
- Study start15 Feb 2024
- Primary completion15 Jul 2024
- Study completion5 Nov 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for EdentulousStudies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 12 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- International Piezosurgery Academy
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Trieste
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06679894
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2024-IND-9
- Status last verified
- Nov 2024
- First submitted
- 5 Nov 2024
- Last updated
- 8 Nov 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Nov 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of Implant Stability Changes in Sites Prepared with Different Osseodensification Techniques: a Prospective Observational Clinical Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06679894
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2024-IND-9
- Conditions
- Edentulous, Alveolar Process Atrophy
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 12 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- International Piezosurgery AcademyUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Trieste
- Study start
- 15 Feb 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 Nov 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Nov 2024 (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 goal of this observational study is to compare, within a cohort of patients requiring rehabilitation in two different sites of the premolar area in the upper maxilla, the primary and secondary stability of implants placed in sites prepared using a magnetic mallet and osseodensification burs.
Detailed description
The primary outcome measures included implant primary stability, assessed through insertion torque and ISQ (Implant Stability Quotient).
Secondary outcome measures were implant secondary stability pattern during the initial 90 days post-implant placement (ISQ), implant survival after one year, the time required for each implant site preparation and any complications or adverse events.
As an additional outcome of this study, we aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between the instrument utilized for implant site preparation and early marginal bone loss. Marginal bone levels were measured at three time points: immediately after surgery (T0), upon delivery of prosthetic rehabilitation (T1), and after one year of loading (T2). The distance between implant platform and bone crest was measured at each time interval, on both mesial and distal aspects of the implant. A positive value was assigned when the bone crest was coronal to the implant platform, whereas a negative value was assigned when the bone crest was apical to the implant platform.
Study design: Observational study of a prospective non-profit cohort.
Study population: The study will be conducted in an outpatient hospital setting.
Sample size calculation: Data from the literature were used regarding insertion torque with the use of the magnetic mallet and osseodensification burs. On average, these data ranged from 50 to 70 Ncm for the magnetic mallet and 35 to 59 Ncm for the osseodensification burs. Using a statistical power of 80%, an alpha error of 0.05, and a beta error of 0.2, the sample size was calculated to be six patients for the experimental group (magnetic mallet - MM) and six patients for the control group (osseodensification burs - OD).
Enrollment procedure: All patients who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be enrolled in the study following the administration of the Information Sheet and the acquisition of informed consent.
Patients seeking implant-supported rehabilitation due to the absence of at least two teeth were evaluated with a periapical radiograph at each selected site to assess the adequacy of residual bone height. If the available bone height appeared to be sufficient, a second-level radiographic exam, a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), was performed to evaluate whether the bone volume was adequate for supporting implant rehabilitation.
Surgical phase: After performing local anaesthesia (mepivacaine HCl 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated. The surgeon, who conducted all the procedures, initiated the first implant site preparation using osteotomes and electrified mallet (Magnetic Mallet, Metaergonomica, Milan, Italy) (test group).
Meanwhile, a second operator began timing the duration of surgery from the initial bone contact of the first osteotome to the placement of the implant.
All the procedures strictly followed the manufacturer's recommendations: initially, a pilot osteotome (100-P) was used. Osteotomes with gradually increasing diameters were employed until the final diameter of 3.2 mm was reached. Subsequently, a 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.
Right after the suture of the first surgical site, the site preparation of the control group began.
After performing local anaesthesia (mepivacaine HCl 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated; the surgeon initiated the preparation using osseodensification burs (Densah, Versah, Jackson, USA). Another operator started timing at the beginning of the procedure and concluded when the implant was placed in the final position.
The experimental sites were prepared using osseodensification burs (Densah, Versah) at a rotation speed of 1200 rpm. The implant beds were equal in dimension and diameter to those prepared with the magnetic hammer, 8.5 mm in height and 3.2 mm in diameter. Subsequently, a 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.
After surgery, a radiographic control was conducted to evaluate the correct positioning of the implants.
Once completed, a blinded operator measured ISQ values of each implant from two different directions: vestibular-palatal and mesio-distal.
Each measurement was taken at abutment level three times for each direction, and their averages were used for the statistical analysis.
The values were collected using a Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) device (Osstell, Göteborg, Sweden) with the appropriate transducer for the selected abutment (Smartpeg # 74, Osstell, Göteborg, Sweden).
After surgery, a check-up visit was scheduled after one week, when the sutures were removed, soft tissue healing was evaluated, and ISQ was measured as in the first time.
The subsequent check-ups were scheduled at 14 days, 21 days, 28 days, 60 days, 90 days and in each meeting, the same parameters were re-evaluated.
All the implants were restored with screw-retained single metal-ceramic crowns four months after surgery and then followed up for at least for 12 months after prosthetic loading. Two additional check-ups were scheduled for radiographic control after 6 months and 1 year.
Statistical plan: The statistical analysis will be performed by means of a computerized statistical package (SigmaStat 3.5, SPSS Inc., Germany). The data will be expressed as mean ± standard deviation and median (interquartile range), respectively, for parametric and non-parametric values.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Single tooth edentulism right | – | Procedure: Implant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified malletsingle missed teeth |
| single tooth edentulism left | – | Procedure: Implant site preparation with osseodensification drillssingle missed tooth |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- After investigating general and local anamnesis, which included evaluation of systemic illnesses and potential allergies, a dental visit was conducted to formulate a specific treatment plan. If the patient was deemed eligible for the research protocol, an additional periapical radiograph was obtained for each selected site to assess the adequacy of residual bone height. If the available bone height appeared to be sufficient, a second-level radiographic exam, a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), was performed to evaluate whether the bone volume was adequate for supporting implant rehabilitation. For patients requiring tooth extraction, this second assessment was performed after six months of healing after extraction.
Key inclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Age older than 18 years old;
- Indication for an implant-supported rehabilitation in the upper premolar / first molar areas;
- The area in which the implants will be placed must have had at least 6 months of healing;
- No use of grafts or bone substitutes following tooth extraction;
- Bone volume measuring at least 10 mm in height and 6 mm in width;
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Acute myocardial infarction within the previous six months;
- Uncontrolled bleeding disorders;
- Uncontrolled diabetes (HBA1c > 7.5%);
- Radiotherapy in the head-neck area in the previous 48 months;
- Immunocompromised patients (es. AIDS / chemotherapy);
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Implant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified malletUnder local anesthesia (mepivacaine HCL 2% with epinephrine1:100.000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar crest. A pilot osteotome (100-P) was used to easily perforate the cortical plate. Subsequently, osteotomes with gradually increasing diameters were employed until the final diameter of 3.2 mm was reached. The sequence of osteotomes and their respective diameters were as follows: 1. Osteotome 100-P: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 2.2 mm; 2. Osteotome 160: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 2.8 mm; 3. Osteotome 200: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 3.2 mm. Implant (4.0x8.5 mm; Anyridge, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was positioned using a surgical motor. A 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment. | Procedure or surgery | Single tooth edentulism right |
| Implant site preparation with osseodensification drillsUnder local anesthesia (mepivacaine HCL 2% with epinephrine1:100.000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar crest. The implant site preparation was realized using osseodensification burs at a rotation speed of 1200 rpm. The osseodensification burs sequence was as follows: 1. Initial pilot hole (rotated clockwise); 2. WT1828 bur (rotated counterclockwise), 3. WT2838 bur (rotated counterclockwise). Implant (4.0x8.5 mm; Anyridge, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was positioned using a surgical motor. A 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment. | Procedure or surgery | single tooth edentulism left |
Primary outcome
Implant primary stability
Time frame: At implant insertion
Insertion torque
Implant primary stability
Time frame: At implant insertion
Resonance frequency
7 secondary outcomes
Implant secondary stability
Time frame: 7 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Time frame: 14 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Time frame: 21 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Time frame: 28 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Time frame: 60 days after implant insertion
Implant secondary stability
Time frame: 90 days after implant insertion
Surgical time
Time frame: The measurement began when the first pilot osteotome or drill was used and ended when the implant was placed.
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 8 Nov 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Edentulous
Active, not recruiting
L-PRF Block vs Composite Graft for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation
Alveolar Ridge Resorption After Extraction, Alveolar Bone Loss
Active, not recruiting
The Aim of the Study Will be Clinically and Radio Graphically Comparison of Two Implant Designs Used to Treat Atrophied Mandible . Implant Design Comparison Will Done for Implant Stability,Peri-implant Soft Tissue Health Changes and Bone Changes .Patients Will be Divided Randomly Into Two Group
Dental Implant Bone Loss, Peri-Implant Health
Active, not recruiting
Clinical Evaluation of a New Printable Denture Base Material
Edentulous Mouth
Recruiting
Comparison of Conventional and Face Scan in Recording the Vertical Dimension of Completely Edentulous Patients
Edentulous Complete Denture Wearers
Recruiting
Two Bovine Xenografts in Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation With or Without Bone Marrow Blood
Alveolar Bone Loss, Sinus Floor Augmentation
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Edentulous and Alveolar Process Atrophy, run by International Piezosurgery Academy 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 10 inclusion and 12 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 8 Nov 2024. 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?
Implant primary stability (time frame: At implant insertion). 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?
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 8 Nov 2024.