Influence of Insertion Torque and Bone Type on Post-operative Pain

NCT ID: NCT06412380

Last Updated: 2024-07-25

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

230 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-12-01

Study Completion Date

2024-02-15

Brief Summary

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

The objectives of this clinical study were to assess the effect of different ITs and bone types on POP levels and survival rates and to investigate the effect of different patient- and site-related factors on POP levels and survival rates.

Detailed Description

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

This prospective clinical study included 230 patients treated with a single tapered screw implant (Bioinnovation Dental®, Brazil). The implants were placed using the appropriate burs with a final master drill of 3.5 or 4.5 mm in diameter by one senior oral surgeon. These implants were multi-threaded, and their surfaces were both sandblasted and acid etched. Of the 230 participants, 172 received a single 5 x 10-mm implant, and 58 received a 4 x 10-mm implant.

For the higher torque range (90 - 200 Ncm), the maximum IT was recorded with an electronic digital torque measuring device (Tohnichi BTGE200CN-G, Hitachi, Japan), while a different gauge (Tohnichi BTG90CN-S, Hitachi, Japan) was used for the lower torque range (10 - 90 Ncm). All implants were placed at the crestal level and closed with a cover screw, and the flap was then sutured with non-resorbable 4/0 nylon suture (Resorba® Germany).

Pain levels were recorded at day 1, 2 and 4 and at week 1, 2 and 3 after surgery using visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 "no pain" to 10 "worst pain ever. Implants were classified into 4 groups based on the IT value; Low: 60 implants (10-29 Ncm, mean=15 Ncm); Regular: 102 implants (30-50 Ncm, mean=42 Ncm); High: 47 implants (51-100 Ncm, mean=75 Ncm); and Very high: 21 implants (101-200 Ncm, mean=170 Ncm).

Implant survival was assessed clinically and radiographically at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. The criteria for implant success according to Buser et al, were no radiolucent zone around the implant, confirmed individual implant stability, and no suppuration, pain or ongoing pathologic processes. All implants that failed to fulfill these success criteria were regarded as failures.

The effect of IT, bone type, implant location, age, gender and smoking was measured with regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to calculate the overall implant survival probabilities. The level of statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.

Conditions

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

Postoperative Pain Postsurgical Pain Dental Implant Failed

Study Design

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

Allocation Method

NON_RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

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

Pain level

After implant placement, all participants were requested to record their pain level using the 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 "no pain" to 10 "worst pain ever." The scale had no other markings along the line. Patients were asked to record their pain level after surgery, 24 hours after surgery, at day 2, day 4 and at week 1, week 2, and week 3.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Implant insertion

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

All patients received a single Tapered Screw implant (Bioinnovation Dental®, Brazil). The implants were placed according to the manufacturer's instructions by using the appropriate burs with a final master drill of 3.5 or 4.5 mm in diameter by one senior oral surgeon. These implants were multi-threaded, and their surfaces were both sandblasted and acid etched. Of the 230 participants, 172 received a single 5 x 10-mm implant, and 58 received a 4 x 10-mm implant.

Implant torque

Implants were classified into 4 groups based on the IT value; Low: 58 implants (10-29 Ncm); Regular: 95 implants (30-50 Ncm); High: 46 implants (51-100 Ncm); and Very High: 31 implants (101-180 Ncm).

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Implant insertion

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

All patients received a single Tapered Screw implant (Bioinnovation Dental®, Brazil). The implants were placed according to the manufacturer's instructions by using the appropriate burs with a final master drill of 3.5 or 4.5 mm in diameter by one senior oral surgeon. These implants were multi-threaded, and their surfaces were both sandblasted and acid etched. Of the 230 participants, 172 received a single 5 x 10-mm implant, and 58 received a 4 x 10-mm implant.

Interventions

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

Implant insertion

All patients received a single Tapered Screw implant (Bioinnovation Dental®, Brazil). The implants were placed according to the manufacturer's instructions by using the appropriate burs with a final master drill of 3.5 or 4.5 mm in diameter by one senior oral surgeon. These implants were multi-threaded, and their surfaces were both sandblasted and acid etched. Of the 230 participants, 172 received a single 5 x 10-mm implant, and 58 received a 4 x 10-mm implant.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

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

Implant surgery

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* partially edentulous patients who presented with one or more missing teeth in the maxillary or mandibular jaw
* at least18 years old, adequate oral hygiene
* absence of infection or periodontal problems adjacent to the implant site - sufficient bone thickness with a minimum 6-mm width and 12-mm length to accommodate implants of 4 or 5 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length.

Exclusion Criteria

* uncontrolled diabetes
* hypertension
* pregnancy
* bone diseases
* use of bisphosphonates
* heavy smoker (more than 20 cigarettes /day)
* severe alcohol or drug use
* patients with recent extraction of teeth and patients requiring bone and soft tissue augmentation procedures.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

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

Yarmouk University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Sharjah

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Ahmed Aziz

Assistant Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Ahmed Aziz, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Sharjah

Locations

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

University of Sharjah

Sharjah city, , United Arab Emirates

Site Status

Countries

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

United Arab Emirates

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Al-Khabbaz AK, Griffin TJ, Al-Shammari KF. Assessment of pain associated with the surgical placement of dental implants. J Periodontol. 2007 Feb;78(2):239-46. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060032.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17274712 (View on PubMed)

Alissa R, Sakka S, Oliver R, Horner K, Esposito M, Worthington HV, Coulthard P. Influence of ibuprofen on bone healing around dental implants: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009 Autumn;2(3):185-99.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20467629 (View on PubMed)

Augustin G, Davila S, Udilljak T, Staroveski T, Brezak D, Babic S. Temperature changes during cortical bone drilling with a newly designed step drill and an internally cooled drill. Int Orthop. 2012 Jul;36(7):1449-56. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1491-z.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22290154 (View on PubMed)

Barewal RM, Oates TW, Meredith N, Cochran DL. Resonance frequency measurement of implant stability in vivo on implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Sep-Oct;18(5):641-51.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 14579951 (View on PubMed)

Barone A, Alfonsi F, Derchi G, Tonelli P, Toti P, Marchionni S, Covani U. The Effect of Insertion Torque on the Clinical Outcome of Single Implants: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Jun;18(3):588-600. doi: 10.1111/cid.12337. Epub 2015 Jun 5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26043651 (View on PubMed)

Beaudette JR, Fritz PC, Sullivan PJ, Piccini A, Ward WE. Investigation of factors that influence pain experienced and the use of pain medication following periodontal surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 May;45(5):578-585. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12885. Epub 2018 Apr 16.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29500837 (View on PubMed)

Becker W, Becker BE, Hujoel P, Abu Ras Z, Goldstein M, Smidt A. Prospective clinical trial evaluating a new implant system for implant survival, implant stability and radiographic bone changes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Feb;15(1):15-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00333.x. Epub 2011 Jan 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 21223489 (View on PubMed)

Berardini M, Trisi P, Sinjari B, Rutjes AW, Caputi S. The Effects of High Insertion Torque Versus Low Insertion Torque on Marginal Bone Resorption and Implant Failure Rates: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses. Implant Dent. 2016 Aug;25(4):532-40. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000422.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27129002 (View on PubMed)

Bryce G, Bomfim DI, Bassi GS. Pre- and post-operative management of dental implant placement. Part 1: management of post-operative pain. Br Dent J. 2014 Aug;217(3):123-7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.650.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25104691 (View on PubMed)

Calandriello R, Tomatis M, Rangert B. Immediate functional loading of Branemark System implants with enhanced initial stability: a prospective 1- to 2-year clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5 Suppl 1:10-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00011.x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12691646 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

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

210

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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