Oval Abutment Versus a Circular Abutment in Dental Implants in the Anterior Maxillae
NCT ID: NCT05642520
Last Updated: 2023-07-27
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
40 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2018-02-01
2023-03-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Material and methods: fourty patients received unitary implants of 3.3mm or 2.9 mm diameter to replace the absence of upper lateral incisor or lower central/lateral incisor with an edentulous space of at least 6.4mm (mesio-distally). Esthetic and clinical parameters were evaluated 12 months after installation of the prosthesis.
Condition or disease: dental implants
Intervention/treatment: 3.3 or 2.9 mm diameter dental implants
Phase: Not Applicable
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effect of Shape and Surface Treatment of the Transmucosal Abutments on Peri-implant Health.
NCT05284461
Evaluation of Using Different Screwed Abutment Height
NCT06017115
Influence of Abutment Shape on Peri-implant Marginal Bone Loss
NCT03888339
Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Predictability of 5.5 mm Dental Implants
NCT04929743
Attachment Types for Single-implant Mandibular Overdentures: a Crossover Clinical Trial
NCT03048812
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 5.9 and 6.3 mm, a 2.9 mm implant was placed, while if the width ranged between 6.4 and 7.1 mm, a 3.3 mm implant was placed. Both implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
The main objective was the papillary index (PI) (Jemt, 1997). It consists in four scores: 0 = absence of interdental papilla; 1 = filling of the interdental space less than 50% of the soft tissues; 2 = filling of the interdental space greater than 50% of the soft tissues; 3 = total filling of the interdental space with good aesthetic harmony; 4 = Hyperplasic interdental papilla formation with irregular soft tissue. Both mesial and distal papilla will be recorded.
The secondary objectives are (a) to observe the stability of the soft and hard tissues after one year in function, (b) to assess the success and survival rate of the implants, (c) to assess the stability of the implants and their evolution and (d) to analyze the degree of patient satisfaction with the aesthetic result.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NON_RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 5.9 and 6.3 mm, a 2.9 mm implant was placed, while if the width ranged between 6.4 and 7.1 mm, a 3.3 mm implant was placed. Both implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
TREATMENT
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
oval section abutment of a 2.9mm
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 5.9 and 6.3 mm, a 2.9 mm implant was placed.
Implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
Circular section abutment of 3.3 mm
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 6.4 and 7.1 mm, a 3.3 mm implant was placed. Implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
circular section abutment in 3.3mm
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 6.4 and 7.1 mm, a 3.3 mm implant was placed. Both implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
Oval section abutment of 2.9 mm
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 5.9 and 6.3 mm, a 2.9 mm implant was placed. Implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Oval section abutment of 2.9 mm
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 5.9 and 6.3 mm, a 2.9 mm implant was placed. Implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
Circular section abutment of 3.3 mm
The choice of the diameter to be used as recommended by the manufacter, was determined by the mesiodistal width between the two adjacent natural teeth, in order to maintain at least 1.5mm between the implant and the adjacent tooth. When said the distance was between 6.4 and 7.1 mm, a 3.3 mm implant was placed. Implant designs are made of a titanium and zirconium alloy (Roxolid®) with a SLActive® surface (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland).
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
* Absence of upper lateral incisors or lower central / lateral incisors with an edentulous space of at least 6.4mm (mesio-distally).
* The teeth adjacent to the edentulous space must be natural.
* Patients who are in periodontal health.
* Signing of informed consent before entering the study.
Exclusion Criteria
* History of radiotherapy.
* Patients smoking more than 20 cigarettes per day.
* Pregnant or breastfeeding patients.
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Ana María García de la Fuente
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ana María García de la Fuente
Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
ANA MARIA GARCIA DE LA FUENTE, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Stomatology II. UPV/EHU
Leioa, Biscay, Spain
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.
Klein MO, Schiegnitz E, Al-Nawas B. Systematic review on success of narrow-diameter dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:43-54. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.3.
Patil RC, den Hartog L, van Heereveld C, Jagdale A, Dilbaghi A, Cune MS. Comparison of two different abutment designs on marginal bone loss and soft tissue development. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 May-Jun;29(3):675-81. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3363.
Froum SJ, Natour M, Cho SC, Yu PYC, Leung M. Expanded Clinical Applications of Narrow-Diameter Implants for Permanent Use. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 Jul/Aug;40(4):529-537. doi: 10.11607/prd.4565.
Roccuzzo A, Imber JC, Jensen SS. Need for lateral bone augmentation at two narrow-diameter implants: A prospective, controlled, clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Apr;32(4):511-520. doi: 10.1111/clr.13721. Epub 2021 Mar 1.
Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch E Jr, Land NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1987 Dec;2(4):145-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302x.1987.tb00298.x. No abstract available.
Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J. 1975 Dec;25(4):229-35.
Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1990 Dec;1(1):33-40. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1990.010105.x.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25. No abstract available.
Herrera-Perez P, Garcia-De-La-Fuente AM, Andia-Larrea E, Marichalar-Mendia X, Aguirre-Urizar JM, Aguirre-Zorzano LA. Clinical analysis of the tooth-implant papilla for two narrow-diameter titanium-zirconium implants in the anterior area: prospective controlled clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Mar 5;24(1):310. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04075-2.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2018_01
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.