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
78 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2015-07-03
2022-09-09
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
1.Is there any difference in terms of mechanical and biological complications as well as marginal bone level between free standing and combined tooth-implant supported 3 unit Fixed Partial Dentures in posterior mandible.
Participants will receive either 2 dental implants(Control group) or 1 standart length dental implants to be combine with abutment tooth or 1 short dental implant to be combine with abutment tooth for supporting 3 unit fixed partial dentures.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Short Implant Versus Crestal Standard Length Implant to Retain Class 1 Removable Partial Denture.
NCT06666595
Outcome of Implant-supported Overdentures
NCT03777748
Effect of Concentrated Growth Factors on Short Implant-Supported Overdentures
NCT06880965
Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Predictability of 5.5 mm Dental Implants
NCT04929743
Trans-gingival or Subcrestal Short Implants Posterior Maxilla Bone Changes
NCT05975138
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Material and methods: 78 partially edentulous patients in the posterior mandible (Kennedy 1 and Kennedy 2), age between 18-65 with no systemic disorders were recruited for the study (n=26). Group 1served as control group and received 2 dental implants for supporting 3 unit fixed partial dentures (FPD). In group 2 dental implants longer than 8 mm and in group 3 shorter than 8 mm were inserted to replace first or second molar combined with first or second premolar respectively to support cement retained 3 units FPD. Periapical radiographs were taken with parallel technique for evaluation of marginal bone resorption (CBL) and modified plaque index (MPI), bleeding index (BI) and sulcus depth of abutment teeth was recorded at the time of FPD insertion, 6 months after FPD insertion and annually. Abutment tooth intrusions, de-cementation of the restoration, porcelain chipping/delamination, framework fracture, abutment screw loosening, abutment and abutment screw fracture, implant fracture were also recorded as complications.
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.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Group2
Mandibular first or second premolar is combined with standard length(8-12mm) dental implants to support 3 unit Fixed Partial Dentures
Insertion of 1 Nucleoss T4 dental implants in posterior mandible
Nucleoss T4 dental implants is combined with first or second premolar to support 3 unit fixed partial dentures
Group3
Mandibular first or second premolar is combined with short dental implants(5-6mm) to support 3 unit Fixed Partial Dentures
Insertion of 1 Nucleoss T5 dental implants in posterior mandible
Nucleoss T5 dental implants is combined with first or second premolar to support 3 unit fixed partial dentures
Group1
Standard length (8-12mm) dental implants are inserted in posterior mandible replacing either first premolar and first molar or second premolar and second molar to support 3 unit fixed partial dentures.
Insertion of 2 Nucleoss T4 dental implants posterior mandible
2 freestanding Nucleoss T4 dental implants is used to support 3 unit fixed partial dentures
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Insertion of 1 Nucleoss T4 dental implants in posterior mandible
Nucleoss T4 dental implants is combined with first or second premolar to support 3 unit fixed partial dentures
Insertion of 1 Nucleoss T5 dental implants in posterior mandible
Nucleoss T5 dental implants is combined with first or second premolar to support 3 unit fixed partial dentures
Insertion of 2 Nucleoss T4 dental implants posterior mandible
2 freestanding Nucleoss T4 dental implants is used to support 3 unit fixed partial dentures
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Partial edentulous in the posterior mandible unilaterally or bilaterally with maxillary arch fully dentate or have teeth and/or implant supported FPD,
3. At least 3 months of healing after tooth extraction on implant site,
4. Periodontally and endodontically healthy abutment tooth to be combined with implant,
5. Patients who have good oral hygiene habits,
6. Patients smoking less than 10 cigarettes/day,
7. More than 2mm of keratinized gingiva on implant site
37 Years
73 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
ORHUN EKREN
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
ORHUN EKREN
Associate Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
ORHUN EKREN, PhD
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Cukurova University
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Meffert RM, Langer B, Fritz ME. Dental implants: a review. J Periodontol. 1992 Nov;63(11):859-70. doi: 10.1902/jop.1992.63.11.859.
Rameh S, Menhall A, Younes R. Key factors influencing short implant success. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Sep;24(3):263-275. doi: 10.1007/s10006-020-00841-y. Epub 2020 Apr 23.
Zarb GA, Lewis DW. Dental implants and decision making. J Dent Educ. 1992 Dec;56(12):863-72.
Al-Omiri MK, Al-Masri M, Alhijawi MM, Lynch E. Combined Implant and Tooth Support: An Up-to-Date Comprehensive Overview. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:6024565. doi: 10.1155/2017/6024565. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
de Paula GA, Silva GC, Vilaca EL, Cornacchia TM, de Magalhaes CS, Moreira AN. Biomechanical Behavior of Tooth-Implant Supported Prostheses With Different Implant Connections: A Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis. Implant Dent. 2018 Jun;27(3):294-302. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000737.
Tsouknidas A, Giannopoulos D, Savvakis S, Michailidis N, Lympoudi E, Fytanidis D, Pissiotis A, Michalakis K. The Influence of Bone Quality on the Biomechanical Behavior of a Tooth-Implant Fixed Partial Denture: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Nov/Dec;31(6):e143-e154. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5254.
Hosny M, Duyck J, van Steenberghe D, Naert I. Within-subject comparison between connected and nonconnected tooth-to-implant fixed partial prostheses: up to 14-year follow-up study. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 Jul-Aug;13(4):340-6.
Naert IE, Duyck JA, Hosny MM, Van Steenberghe D. Freestanding and tooth-implant connected prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients. Part I: An up to 15-years clinical evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Jun;12(3):237-44. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003237.x.
Gunne J, Astrand P, Lindh T, Borg K, Olsson M. Tooth-implant and implant supported fixed partial dentures: a 10-year report. Int J Prosthodont. 1999 May-Jun;12(3):216-21.
Nickenig HJ, Schafer C, Spiekermann H. Survival and complication rates of combined tooth-implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17(5):506-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01259.x.
Schwartz SR. Short Implants: An Answer to a Challenging Dilemma? Dent Clin North Am. 2020 Apr;64(2):279-290. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.11.001. Epub 2020 Jan 2.
Benlidayi ME, Ucar Y, Tatli U, Ekren O, Evlice B, Kisa HI, Baksi U. Short Implants Versus Standard Implants: Midterm Outcomes of a Clinical Study. Implant Dent. 2018 Feb;27(1):95-100. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000710.
Jung RE, Al-Nawas B, Araujo M, Avila-Ortiz G, Barter S, Brodala N, Chappuis V, Chen B, De Souza A, Almeida RF, Fickl S, Finelle G, Ganeles J, Gholami H, Hammerle C, Jensen S, Jokstad A, Katsuyama H, Kleinheinz J, Kunavisarut C, Mardas N, Monje A, Papaspyridakos P, Payer M, Schiegnitz E, Smeets R, Stefanini M, Ten Bruggenkate C, Vazouras K, Weber HP, Weingart D, Windisch P. Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:69-77. doi: 10.1111/clr.13342.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Orhun ekren
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.