View clinical trials related to Anodontia.
Filter by:Trial Design - Objectives and Purpose The aim of this study is to perform a proof of concept for the successful retention and outcome measures of zirconia RBBs for the replacement of missing canine or posterior teeth (6-8mm span) and that they will exhibit similar survival rates (95%) as metal ceramic RBBs over 3 years and short term (Botelho 2006). The use of monolithic extra-coronal zirconia RBBs in the posterior region does not appear to have been reported in the literature (A search pf Pub Med and Google Scholar has not shown any similar studies that have been published - pubmed.gov; Keywords: "zirconia", "resin", "clinical" assessed on 17/10/2015 AND google scholar; Keywords: "zirconia", "resin bonded fixed partial denture", "resin bonded fixed dental prosthesis", "Maryland", "resin bonded bridge" "posterior", "clinical") In addition, currently there appear to be no clinical trials planned or finished in this area (clinicaltrial.gov; Keywords: "zirconia", "resin" assessed on 17/10/2015) using zirconia RBBs in the posterior region. This reveals that there is a gap in the literature on the use of zirconia for replacing posterior teeth with such prostheses. The primary outcome measures would be: success ie. prosthesis retention ie. does not fall out The secondary outcome measures would be: - complications of the prosthesis such as tipping, drifting or fracture. - patient centered outcomes (satisfaction and oral health related quality of life) on the RBBs The hypothesis is that 2-unit cantilevered zirconia RBBs will be as successful as current data on 2-unit cantilevered metal-ceramic RBBs from this centre and that there will be no difference in the patient centered outcomes. The Primary review appointments will be at 1, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. However, longer term follow up will be performed and this centre has experience of such long term studies (9.5 years - Botelho 2014). A randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing to metal-ceramic RBBs will NOT be performed as the 5-year success rate of both metal-ceramic (Botelho 2006) and anterior zirconia (Sasse 2014) prosthesis were higher than 95% and this small differences would mean an unattainable large sample size in an equivalence test (Burns 2001). Significance and implications Zirconia has significant strength and greater stiffness than base metal alloys and displays clinical outcomes comparable to metal-ceramic conventional crowns and bridges (Heintze 2010, Sailer 2007). Well polished zirconia has been observed to have lower wear rates than porcelain (Stober 2014) Zirconia RBBs for posterior tooth replacement will offer an esthetic and biocompatible treatment option to patients over the traditional ceramic-metal RBBs. It is anticipated that patient demand for this would be high as these prostheses should be as successful (retentive). These results would re-write established dental prosthodontics textbooks and this would be the first centre to report on the routine use of a 2-unit extracoronal all-zirconia RBB for the replacement of missing posterior teeth. Research plan and methodology The sample pool would be obtained from patients presenting at the Prince Philip Dental Hospital, University of Hong Kong and who request and need replacement of one or more missing teeth.. They will be clinically assessed for eligibility and invited to participate with written consent in the study. After treatment they will be reviewed up to a 3rd year endpoint of the study. Further review beyond this will be undertaken.
To compare platform-switched implants to platform-matched implants for replacement of a single missing tooth and their effect on: 1) Interproximal alveolar crest level in relation to implant platform. 2) Buccal implant recession. 3) Presence or absence of black triangle apical to the contact point. 4) Implant Success. 5) Adequate buccal tissue thickness.
The primary objective of this study is to determine if the use of a bone compaction process (osseodensification) (Densah™ bur: Versah Osseodensification Company™) to prepare dental implant sites, in human subjects, results in increased bone-ridge width, increased compact bone in the outer wall of the prepared sites, and dental implant stability.
The purpose of this study is to compare the success rates of two surgical protocols. One protocol will have the implants placed at the time of tooth extraction and placed into function. The other protocol will have the implants placed into healed extraction sites and placed into function.
Tooth replacement is a significant issue in the World and while dental implants and conventional bridges have been used to replace missing teeth, dental implants are too expensive for many and conventional dental bridges are destructive to supporting tooth tissue. Resin-bonded bridges (RBBs) are a conservative and cost effective replacement option that involves minimal tooth preparation, leaving the majority of the tooth intact. They are secured in place with an adhesive cement, which is bonded to the outer enamel layer. Clinical audit of these prostheses at the University of Hong Kong shows two-unit RBBs to have some of the highest success rates in the dental literature for the replacement of missing premolar and incisor teeth. However, for the replacement of molar teeth, two-unit RBBs are not performed, as established protocol and recognised texts contraindicate their use due to concerns with tipping or drifting of supporting teeth. Replacement of a single missing molar tooth can be with a three-unit, fixed-fixed (single-piece casting) or three-unit, fixed-movable (two-part casting). However, the fixed-fixed option has a higher debond failure rate than two-unit RBBs and therefore, at this centre, a modified, 3-unit fixed-movable design is used. This two-part casting allows for minor, independent movements of the supporting teeth and thereby aims to reduce stresses between them and, similarly, reduce de-bonding forces. This has the potential for greater longevity and easier long-term maintenance as if the major part of the bridge debonds it can be recemented. The aim of this unique study is to compare 2-unit and 3-unit RBBs for the replacement of single missing molar tooth in a randomized clinical trial. These two designs will be clinically evaluated at 6 months , 1 year, 2 years and 3 years to observe the outcome measures. The primary outcome will examine the success of the dental prostheses with respects to the need of any clinical intervention to repair or remediate the RBB or supporting tooth. Minor outcome measures will examine fatigue or damage to the prosthesis, changes in bone support, pulpal or periodontal health or tooth mobility. Patient satisfaction and quality of life evaluation of the dental prostheses will also be examined. Will 2-unit RBBs offer patients a simpler, cheaper, and successful option over current designs? This has not been previously reported.
The present study tested the hypothesis that Platform Switching (PS) and Regular Platform (RP) implants would have different outcomes in the bilateral single tooth replacements against the alternative hypothesis of no difference.
Removable false teeth (called removable partial dentures (RPDs)) are commonly made for people with missing teeth. RPDs are made out of a framework and the replacement teeth/gum. The framework sits on the teeth and the gums and can be made out of different materials, metal or non-metal, with different properties. The plastic teeth and gum sit on the framework. A common framework material is cobalt chromium, a rigid, non-precious metal alloy. Other framework materials include titanium and non-metal materials such as medical grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK). A review of the literature shows that no research has been reported investigating how different RPD framework materials impact on a person's oral health related quality of life (OHQoL). The sensation that different frameworks have in the mouth can be quite varied between people, and it would be relevant to be able to tell patients which type of framework is better tolerated based on research evidence. We hope to conduct an un-blinded randomised crossover pilot trial investigating the difference in patient preference and oral health related quality of life measured by patient centred outcomes in a group of patients due to receive tooth supported removable partial dentures at the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital.
To evaluate the clinical performance and survival rate of NobelProceraTM Bridge Shaded Zirconia on natural teeth in the posterior region for a period of 5 years. The working hypothesis of this clinical study is that industrial centrally produced 3- or 4-unit bridges of shaded yttrium-oxide partially-stabilized (Y-TZP) zirconia (NobelProceraTM Shaded Zirconia) in combination with a veneering ceramic material will show sufficient CDA ratings (80% R+S) and a sufficient survival rate (93%) after 5 years in comparison with a reference level of 95%.
An important result of healing after tooth extraction is a reduction in dimensions of the remaining bone at that site. This reduction of bone volume precludes successful restoration of the space using a dental implant. Bone augmentation has shown promise in clinical reports to reduce this loss of bone volume, thus allowing implant placement and restoration. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of guided bone regeneration around dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets.
Since there are no clinical studies available comparing the gold standard (autogenous bone graft plus resorbable membrane) to the promising combination of xenogenic bone graft loaded with rhBMP-2 in combination with a collagen membrane for localized ridge augmentation, the present exploratory study has been designed. The aim of the present study is therefore to test whether or not the application of a xenogenic bone block loaded with rhBMP-2 will results in clinically, radiographically and histologically similar outcomes as the gold standard (autogenous bone block) for the regeneration of chronic ridge defects. The investigators expect that there is no difference in bone quantity and quality between the two methods and that the use of the test treatment will be more user and patient friendly according to the patient perception/acceptance since no second surgical site will be necessary as well as cause less complications.