Comparative Evaluation of Osseodensification Versus Conventional Implant Site
NCT ID: NCT04189718
Last Updated: 2019-12-06
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
22 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2017-11-30
2019-10-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
All the patients received Norris implant. the implant site preparation technique being Osseodensification protocol for the test group and conventional implant site preparation protocol for the control group, eleven in each group. The clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline, immediate post implant placement, six months and twelve months postoperatively.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
osseodensification protocol
Experimental: In the test group, osteotomy site preparation was performed using Osseodensification technique at 1100 rpm and implant was placed
osseodensification protocol
Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with osseodensification protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in counter clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.
conventional implant site preparation protocol
Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with conventional implant site preparation protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.
conventional implant site preparation protocol
Control: in the control group, osteotomy site was prepared using conventional drilling protocol at 1100 rpm and implant was placed.
osseodensification protocol
Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with osseodensification protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in counter clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.
conventional implant site preparation protocol
Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with conventional implant site preparation protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
osseodensification protocol
Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with osseodensification protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in counter clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.
conventional implant site preparation protocol
Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with conventional implant site preparation protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Bone density of D2 or D3 (Carl E.Misch).
3. Patients between 18-75 years.
4. Patients who demonstrate good plaque control (PI\<10%) and showing good compliance.
5. Patients willing to participate in the study.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Patients with bleeding disorder or on anticoagulant therapy.
3. Pregnant and lactating females.
4. Patients with history of smoking.
5. Use of systemic antibiotics in the past 3 months.
6. Patients treated with any medication known to cause periodontal changes.
7. Drug and alcohol abuse.
8. Occlusal interferences.
9. Patients with history of titanium allergy.
10. Immunocompromised state and debilitating disease.
11. Malignancy or radiotherapy/chemotherapy for malignancy.
12. Systemic diseases that would negatively influence wound healing.
18 Years
75 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences & Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Dr Prabhuji MLV
Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
PRIYANKA ACHARYA, mds
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences
prabhuji mlv, mds
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Krishnadevaraya college of dental sciences
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Podaliri Vulpiani M. New Osseodensification Implant Site Preparation Method to Increase Bone Density in Low-Density Bone: In Vivo Evaluation in Sheep. Implant Dent. 2016 Feb;25(1):24-31. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000358.
Lahens B, Neiva R, Tovar N, Alifarag AM, Jimbo R, Bonfante EA, Bowers MM, Cuppini M, Freitas H, Witek L, Coelho PG. Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016 Oct;63:56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.007. Epub 2016 Jun 10.
Lahens B, Lopez CD, Neiva RF, Bowers MM, Jimbo R, Bonfante EA, Morcos J, Witek L, Tovar N, Coelho PG. The effect of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implants with different surface treatments: A study in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019 Apr;107(3):615-623. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34154. Epub 2018 Aug 6.
Witek L, Neiva R, Alifarag A, Shahraki F, Sayah G, Tovar N, Lopez CD, Gil L, Coelho PG. Absence of Healing Impairment in Osteotomies Prepared via Osseodensification Drilling. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019 Jan/Feb;39(1):65-71. doi: 10.11607/prd.3504.
Witek L, Alifarag AM, Tovar N, Lopez CD, Gil LF, Gorbonosov M, Hannan K, Neiva R, Coelho PG. Osteogenic parameters surrounding trabecular tantalum metal implants in osteotomies prepared via osseodensification drilling. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019 Nov 1;24(6):e764-e769. doi: 10.4317/medoral.23108.
Alifarag AM, Lopez CD, Neiva RF, Tovar N, Witek L, Coelho PG. Atemporal osseointegration: Early biomechanical stability through osseodensification. J Orthop Res. 2018 Sep;36(9):2516-2523. doi: 10.1002/jor.23893. Epub 2018 Mar 30.
Tian JH, Neiva R, Coelho PG, Witek L, Tovar NM, Lo IC, Gil LF, Torroni A. Alveolar Ridge Expansion: Comparison of Osseodensification and Conventional Osteotome Techniques. J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Mar/Apr;30(2):607-610. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004956.
Lopez CD, Alifarag AM, Torroni A, Tovar N, Diaz-Siso JR, Witek L, Rodriguez ED, Coelho PG. Osseodensification for enhancement of spinal surgical hardware fixation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017 May;69:275-281. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.020. Epub 2017 Jan 13.
Huwais S, Meyer EG. A Novel Osseous Densification Approach in Implant Osteotomy Preparation to Increase Biomechanical Primary Stability, Bone Mineral Density, and Bone-to-Implant Contact. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan/Feb;32(1):27-36. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4817. Epub 2016 Oct 14.
Stavropoulos A, Cochran D, Obrecht M, Pippenger BE, Dard M. Effect of Osteotomy Preparation on Osseointegration of Immediately Loaded, Tapered Dental Implants. Adv Dent Res. 2016 Mar;28(1):34-41. doi: 10.1177/0022034515624446.
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.
Oliveira PGFP, Bergamo ETP, Neiva R, Bonfante EA, Witek L, Tovar N, Coelho PG. Osseodensification outperforms conventional implant subtractive instrumentation: A study in sheep. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2018 Sep 1;90:300-307. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.04.051. Epub 2018 Apr 18. No abstract available.
Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Podaliri Vulpiani M. Validation of value of actual micromotion as a direct measure of implant micromobility after healing (secondary implant stability). An in vivo histologic and biomechanical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):1423-1430. doi: 10.1111/clr.12756. Epub 2016 Jan 4.
Falco A, Berardini M, Trisi P. Correlation Between Implant Geometry, Implant Surface, Insertion Torque, and Primary Stability: In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Jul/Aug;33(4):824-830. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6285.
Slete FB, Olin P, Prasad H. Histomorphometric Comparison of 3 Osteotomy Techniques. Implant Dent. 2018 Aug;27(4):424-428. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000767.
Cappare P, Vinci R, Di Stefano DA, Traini T, Pantaleo G, Gherlone EF, Gastaldi G. Correlation between Initial BIC and the Insertion Torque/Depth Integral Recorded with an Instantaneous Torque-Measuring Implant Motor: An in vivo Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e613-20. doi: 10.1111/cid.12294. Epub 2015 Apr 15.
Alghamdi H, Anand PS, Anil S. Undersized implant site preparation to enhance primary implant stability in poor bone density: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Dec;69(12):e506-12. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.007.
Markovic A, Calvo-Guirado JL, Lazic Z, Gomez-Moreno G, Calasan D, Guardia J, Colic S, Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Gacic B, Delgado-Ruiz R, Janjic B, Misic T. Evaluation of primary stability of self-tapping and non-self-tapping dental implants. A 12-week clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Jun;15(3):341-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00415.x. Epub 2011 Dec 15.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
02_D012_80824
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id