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.
RECRUITING
NA
60 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-09-01
2026-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Consecutive patients fulfilling inclusion/exclusion criteria will enter the study. Once the implant is inserted, patients will be divided into three groups according to the time if their inclusion in the study.
Study groups (20 patients per group):
1. Group 1: Placing Lance Conical implant with a healing abutment. Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
2. Group 2: Placing Lance+ (Internal Hex connection) implant with a healing abutment. Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
3. Group 3: Placing Lance Conical implant together with Connect Abutment (tightened to 30 Ncm) with a Connect healing cap ("one time one abutment"). Screw retained restoration after 3 months.
Consecutive inclusion of patients - 1st- group 1, 2nd - group 2, 3rd - group 3 and vice versa.
Primary outcome variable: bone level changes 12 months post-loading
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Marginal Bone Remodeling at Monolithic Zirconia Full-Arch Prostheses in the Maxilla and Mandible
NCT07323290
Simplified vs Conventional Drilling Protocol for Implant Placment
NCT06780956
MARGINAL BONE LEVELS AROUND IMPLANTS PLACED BY PARTIAL OR FULL-THICKNESS FLAP: A 3-YEAR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
NCT06926101
Influence of the Implant-prosthetic Connection in the Marginal Bone Loss and Bacterial Leakage
NCT04328051
Manual or Digitally Guided Surgical Technique for Replacing Single Tooth Edentulism by Means of Sub-crestally Placed Implants. A 3-year Parallel Randomized Clinical Study on Marginal Bone Levels Stability
NCT06250621
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Traditionally the Interaction between living cells and a biocompatible foreign material is mediated by some biological factors and could be associated with a mathematical equation Apparently, this is based on few variables generically represented by soft tissue patterns and biomaterial features (4). In fact, according to the basic science, the host tissue (intended both histologically and epigenetically), the biocompatible foreign material and the antagonist.
The tissue variable should be intended not only as its clinical appearance (thin vs thick), but overall as its INDIVIDUAL regenerative and inflammatory capability (which of course involves also the histologic aspect) (5) Changing our prospecting and focusing on the prosthetic variable, this should be intended not only as it is in its macro/micro and nano structure, but also as it is used in the prosthetic work flow In fact, the proximity of the prosthetic components to the connective tissues (mostly evident in case platform switching configuration) could allow the clinician during the healing period to actively influence soft tissue morphogenesis In fact, 2 weeks after reopening, traditional prosthetic work flow provides for healing abutment disconnection and impression taking (just at the peak of the first phases of wound healing) and two weeks there after new disconnections are required for try ins and definitive prosthetic delivery, just when the maturation healing phase peak occurs(6-7).
These continuous dis-reconnections may lead to soft tissue healing disruption with a long junctional epithelium till the IAJ.
Not to mention the fact that continuous disconnections create a link for the contamination of the connection and the exposure of soft tissues to abutment not always contaminated The only approach able to prevent this "physiological reaction" and allow a complete healing is to adopt a protocol aimed, after an intraoperative impression, to definitively screw the final abutment at the time of second surgery and allow soft tissue to heal undisturbed (so called "one-abutment/one-time) (8) Another factor affecting soft tissue/abutment interaction is the abutment macro design A recent systematic review our group recently produced, suggested that narrower abutments fail to show any difference in terms of soft tissue health (and this is reasonable) and esthetics (9).
On the other hand, the metanalysis highlighted significant differences in terms of MBL in favor of narrower abutments just because this configuration allows for more room for soft tissues supracrestal attachment, probably changing their fiber arrangement from parallel to the long axis to ring-shaped circular with a stronger connective seal Another factor related to the "abutment variable" that dramatically may affect soft tissue/abutment interaction, and therefore interacting with the underlaid bone, is its micro design.
In fact, the importance of the material should be shifted from the bulk to the external surface and its biochemophysical and topographic properties, including cleanliness.
In fact, decontamination of the abutment surface is a prerequisite for cell. Aim The present study will test the effect of different prosthetic modalities on conical and internal hex connection implants, assessing the radiographic MBL changes after one year.
Materials and Methods Study design The study was designed as a prospective, controlled clinical trial with a parallel design. Approval from the Ethics Committee will be obtained before the study commences. Selected patients were informed about the purpose of the study, and if they agreed to participate, they were recruited to participate in the clinical trial once they had signed the informed consent form.
Subject population Subjects in need of an implant-supported restoration will be screened for the following study criteria Consecutive patients fulfilling inclusion/exclusion criteria will enter the study. Once the implant is inserted, patients will be divided into three groups according to the time if their inclusion in the study.
Study groups (20 patients per group):
1. Group 1: Placing Lance Conical implant with a healing abutment. Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
2. Group 2: Placing Lance+ (Internal Hex connection) implant with a healing abutment. Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
3. Group 3: Placing Lance Conical implant together with Connect Abutment (tightened to 30 Ncm) with a Connect healing cap ("one time one abutment"). Screw retained restoration after 3 months.
Consecutive inclusion of patients - 1st- group 1, 2nd - group 2, 3rd - group 3 and vice versa.
Information to collect:
Inclusion day: Demographic data, medical condition Day of surgery: implant site, insertion torque, parallel X-ray. Suture removal - adverse effects. 3 months (impression) - parallel X-ray. Adverse effects. Loading day - parallel X-ray. Adverse effects. 6 months post-loading - parallel X-ray. Adverse effects. 12 months post-loading - parallel X-ray. Adverse effects, pocket depth, BOP.
Clinical photos and videos will be appreciated for future presentations.
Primary outcome variable: bone level changes 12 months post-loading Surgical and prosthetic protocol According to the manufacturer's instructions, using the Lance surgical kit, with tools for Conical connection and internal hex implants (fig 1 and 2).
Prosthetic parts will be inserted according to the manufacturer's instructions using the specific tools and a torque-controlled rachet.
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
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Arm 1
Placing Lance+ (Internal Hex connection) implant with a healing abutment. Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
Traditional prosthetic procedure
Three months later, after an impression, haling abutment will be removed and a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
Arm 2
Placing Lance Conical implant with a healing abutment. Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
Traditional prosthetic procedure
Three months later, after an impression, haling abutment will be removed and a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
Arm 3
Placing Lance Conical implant together with Connect Abutment (tightened to 30 Ncm) with a Connect healing cap ("one time one abutment"). Screw retained restoration after 3 months.
one abutment-one time
Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated directly on the connect healing
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Traditional prosthetic procedure
Three months later, after an impression, haling abutment will be removed and a screw-retained restoration will be seated using a Ti-Base abutment.
one abutment-one time
Three months later, after an impression, a screw-retained restoration will be seated directly on the connect healing
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Local inflammation (including untreated periodontitis).
3. Mucosa disease such as erosive lichen planus
4. History of local irradiation therapy.
5. Presence of osseous lesions
6. History of implant failure
7. Postextraction sites with less than 6 weeks of healing
8. Sever bruxism or cjenching habits
9. Persistent intraoral infection.
10. Bone type 4.
1. Lack of primary stability less than 35 Ncm.
2. Need for augmentation procedures during implant surgery.
3. Inability to place the implant according to the prosthetic requirements.
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Alessio Triestino
UNKNOWN
Studio Odontoiatrico Associato Dr. P. Cicchese e L. Canullo
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Luigi Canullo
professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
luigi Canullo, prof
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Studi Odontoiatrici Canullo
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Studi Odontoiatrici Luigi Canullo
Roma, RM, Italy
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
L1
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.