View clinical trials related to Tooth Loss.
Filter by:A prospective, observational, multicenter study where 60 patients needing implants in the maxilla or mandible will be enrolled. The patients will be restored with a final prosthesis no later than 4 months following implant placement surgery. The patients will come back for follow-up evaluations yearly for 2 years.
In this case-control study a bioactive implant surface was compared with traditional surfaced implants. Primary objectives: Test the implant stability in post-extractive sites, comparing traditional surfaced implants (MultiNeO CS, control group) to bioactive surfaced implants (NINA- MultiNeO NH, treatment group). Primary outcome endpoints were Implant stability, assessed through Implant stability quotient (ISQ) values and Marginal bone loss (MBL)
Commercially pure (CP) titanium is the gold standard to produce dental implants because it has a huge volume of scientific publications over a period of more than 50 years, it is cheap and simple to produce (i.e., making dental implants economically "affordable") and comes in numerous specific designs of screws for various indications. That is why more than 95% of the implant market is dominated by titanium. However, there is an innovation trend to manufacture implants from more inert and biocompatible materials. Ceramic implants represent a valuable alternative for expanding the patient base of clinicians, especially in cases with challenging aesthetic demand. Furthermore, there has been a significant increase in the number of patients requesting metal-free dentistry or bio-holistic implant treatments. In the past, ceramics were often branded as "inferior" quality due to its reputation as being brittle but the growing volume of scientific publications specifically on zirconia are demonstrating that it is comparable in fracture-strength with titanium implants. There is a clear market niche for zirconia implants, especially in cases of: - Aesthetic reconstructions in the anterior region, especially in patients with a thin gingival biotype - Gingival recessions where a white colored implant is a great advantage - For patients with a titanium intolerance/sensitivity - For patients who prefer a bio-holistic/metal-free dental approach. Today, clinicians are asking for long-term clinical results of zirconia as a dental implant material. Therefore, Z-Systems AG is conducting this zirconia dental implant registry. A registry design was chosen because it will capture long-term benefits/risks from clinical routine without patient selection.
A post-market, randomized-controlled, superiority clinical study to compare medium-term performance and safety of the Straumann PURE 2-piece Ceramic Implant with Straumann Bone Level Implant using a fully digital workflow.
SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND The periodontal risk assessment method proposed by the University of Ferrara (namely, the PerioRisk; Trombelli et al. 2009) has been retrospectively validated and has been shown as a promising tool for tailoring supportive periodontal care. No information on its efficacy on psychological outcomes, however, is currently available. AIMS The primary aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of communicating periodontal risk level (as assessed with the PerioRisk tool) on psychological outcomes (i.e, patient consciousness and propensity to adhere to treatment instructions) in subjects who have been programmed for first periodontal consultation. The secondary aims of the study are (i) to comparatively evaluate the level of consciousness and propensity to adhere to treatment instructions in patients without a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis (as evaluated after communication of their periodontal risk level) and patients with a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis (as evaluated before their periodontal consultation); and (ii) to comparatively evaluate oral hygiene levels in patients who have received information on their diagnosis, treatment plan, oral hygiene instructions and treatment goals with or without the support of PerioRisk. MATERIALS & METHODS Eighty patients (40 without a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis, NTLP; 40 with a history of tooth loss due to periodontitis, TLP) will be recruited at 2 centers and randomly assigned to receive test or control treatment. Therefore, each of the two treatment groups (test and control) will incorporate two subgroups (NTLP and TLP) of 20 patients each. For each participant, the experimental phase of the study will consist of three observation intervals: T0 (verification of the eligibility criteria, patient allocation to treatment; T1 (performed within 3 months from T0 for assessment of clinical parameters, treatment administration, and administration of questionnaires before and after treatment; T2 (performed at 8-12 weeks after T1 for the assessment of clinical parameters). At T1, following routine periodontal clinical assessment and questionnaire completion, patients will receive test or control treatment according to the randomization list. Test treatment will consist of a single session structured as follows: (i) information on periodontal diagnosis; (ii) information on periodontal risk level (as calculated with the PerioRisk tool) and profile (i.e., the magnitude of the contribution of each PerioRisk parameter to generate the patient risk level); (iii) information on treatment plan and oral hygiene instructions, with emphasis to treatment goals based on the PerioRisk output. Control treatment will consist in a single session structured as follows: (i) information on periodontal diagnosis; (ii) information on treatment plan and oral hygiene instructions, and treatment goals. Although the general concept of risk of periodontitis incidence/progression will be explained, no mention will be made to the patient risk level (as calculated with PerioRisk or any other tool) when administering control treatment. Two operators will be trained to administer test and control treatments in approximately 8', but time for treatment administration will be extended for additional questions and answers whenever needed by the patient. Total time for treatment administration will be recorded. Patients will be administered the following battery of psychological questionnaires: (i) Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) (Watson et al. 1988); (ii) Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) questionnaire (Conner & Norman 2005); (iii) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A/D) (Zigmond & Snaith 1983). While HADS-A/D will be used to screen out patients with clinical anxiety/ depression before treatment administration, PANAS and PMT will be completed either immediately before and immediately after treatment administration.
Evaluation of the effect of laser with piezo-surgical device in dental implants
Intraoral oral scanning significantly improves scanning accuracy compared to digitized conventional impression techniques. The digitized closed tray impression technique showed significantly more accurate results than the digitized open-tray impression technique in partially edentulous patients.
There is no consensus on antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant applications, and its necessity is controversial. Current reports on antibiotic use are insufficient. Also, other than antibiotic prophylaxis, data that may affect the post-operative situation such as the patient's gender, age, smoking, duration of surgery, length of the operation field, flap design have not been evaluated comprehensively. This study aims to evaluate post-operative complications, implant success, and implant stability in 50 individuals: preoperative single dose of 2 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid (25) and placebo (25).
Aim of the study is to examine the feasibility of dental implant insertion in patients receiving high, adjuvant and low dose > 4 years.
The aim of is to compare the survival rate and technical outcomes of cantilever implant-supported fixed denture prosthetics (cFDPs) made either out of monolithic zirconia bonded to a titanium base in a digital workflow, or porcelain fused-to metal using a gold abutment in a conventional workflow. In addition, biological outcomes, wear patterns, PROMs and time efficiency will be recorded. The null hypothesis is: the reconstruction type does not influence the survival rate and technical outcomes of 2-unit implant-supported cFDP.