BioHPP Hybrid Prosthesis Versus BioHPP Bar Implant Supported and Retained Overdenture Rehabilitating Edentulous Mandible

NCT ID: NCT05468983

Last Updated: 2022-07-21

Study Results

Results pending

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.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

14 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-05-21

Study Completion Date

2022-02-20

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The biggest challenge of oral rehabilitation is the replacement of lost structures and the restoration of their function and esthetics, focusing on matching a healthy tooth.

Traditional complete dentures, implant (retained, supported) overdentures, and complete implant-supported fixed prostheses are all alternatives to the rehabilitation of the mandibular arch.

The aim of this study was to compare BioHPP used as a skeletal substructure for hybrid (implant fixed, detachable) prostheses versus BioHPP bar supporting and retaining by using radiographic tracing to the marginal bone height changes around the implants, patient satisfaction can be improved.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Fourteen completely edentulous male patients were selected from the out-patient clinic, Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, according to certain criteria, and they were randomly allocated into two equal groups: group I: the seven patients were rehabilitated by the BioHpp hybrid prosthesis supported on four inter-foraminal implants; group II: While in group II, seven patients were rehabilitated by the BioHpp bar supported and retained overdenture.

The upper and lower complete dentures were constructed following conventional methods, and the surgical guide was constructed according to dual-scan CBCT.

the four parallel inter-foraminal implants were inserted in the mandible for each patient through used the surgical guide ( flapless technique ) After three months from the first surgery, the final prosthesis was constructed.

For Group I; BioHpp fixed hybrid prosthesis, for Group II; BioHpp bar implant-supported and retained complete overdentures were created using digital workflow CAD/CAM.

The crestal bone height loss was evaluated after six, twelve, and eighteen months from implant loading by using digital preapical radiography. Also, the patient's subjective evaluations by using a questionnaire based on the visual analog scale including five points (low dissatisfied, dissatisfied, fair, satisfied, highly satisfied) were evaluated for speech, chewing, comfort aesthetic, oral hygiene, and general satisfaction.

A comparison between groups I and II was performed by using the Chi-square test, which revealed in the results that group II was significantly lower than group I at all intervals in the mesial and distal surfaces of anterior and posterior implants. Also, the results of the patient satisfaction revealed that, after 6 months, there was an insignificant difference between them as P \> 0.05 in all except oral hygiene, as satisfaction was significantly higher in group II than in group I. While, after 12 months, there was an insignificant difference between them all (P \> 0.05).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Marginal Bone Loss Patient Satisfaction

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

to compare BioHPP used as a skeletal substructure for hybrid (implant fixed, detachable) prostheses versus BioHPP bar supporting and retaining by using radiographic tracing to the marginal bone height changes around the implants, patient satisfaction can be improved.
Primary Study Purpose

OTHER

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Investigators
All the Selected patients were rehabilitated with the upper and the lower complete denture then was divided by computer randomization "using random allocation software: into two equal groups

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

BioHpp hybrid prosthesis( fixed )

4 implants were placed in the mandibular arch by a surgical guide, after 3 months the final prosthesis was constructed by using a digital workflow( CAD-CAM )

Group Type OTHER

surgical ( implants placement)

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

4 implants were placed interforamen of the mandibular arch by using the surgical guide

BioHpp bar supported and retained overdenture

4 implants were placed in the mandibular arch by a surgical guide, after 3 months the final prosthesis was constructed by using a digital workflow( CAD-CAM )

Group Type OTHER

surgical ( implants placement)

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

4 implants were placed interforamen of the mandibular arch by using the surgical guide

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

surgical ( implants placement)

4 implants were placed interforamen of the mandibular arch by using the surgical guide

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Final prosthesis was constructed on the 4 implants

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1- sufficient inter arch distance. 2. good oral hygiene. 3. Enough bone volume in interforaminal region.

Exclusion Criteria

1. TMJ disorders.
2. Radiotherapy or chemotherapy.
3. Diabetes mellitus
4. Uncooperative patients
Minimum Eligible Age

55 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

65 Years

Eligible Sex

MALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Ain Shams University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Mahmoud H El Afandy, prof

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

faculty of dentistry ,Ain Shames University

Magda H Mohamed, lectu

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

faculty of dentistry ,Ain Shames University

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Prosthodontics Department Faculty of Dentistry

Cairo, Ain Shames University, Egypt

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Egypt

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

686

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.