View clinical trials related to Dental Implant Failed.
Filter by:This study will compare 2 methods to clean contaminated implant surfaces: air-polishing device versus titanium curette. Both of these methods will be used in the non-surgical and surgical setting, followed by implant removal. Then, in-vitro analysis to assess the efficacy of surface decontamination will be performed.
The purpose of this study was to report the clinical and radiographical outcomes of using autogenous cortical bone plates combined with sticky allogenic bone graft for augmenting maxillary anterior atrophic combined horizontal and vertical ridge defects with simultaneous versus staged implant placement.
Aim of the current randomized clinical trial is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of computer-guided immediate implant placement performed simultaneously with artificial intelligence assisted socket shield technique versus conventional approach.
Peri-implant mucositis is one of the most common peri-implant diseases. It was reported in more than 20% of the subjects rehabilitated with dental implants (Lee et al. 2017; Rodrigo et al. 2018; Wada et al. 2019). Furthermore, a significant association was found between peri-implant mucositis, and smoking, implant maintenance and peri-implant soft tissue characteristics (Wada et al. 2019). Soft tissue quality and volume of the peri-implant mucosa are considered important factors in the prognosis of osseointegrated implants. Linkevicius et al. showed that if its soft tissue thickness was less than 2 mm, crestal bone loss might occur (Linkevicius et al. 2009). In addition, when soft tissue width was evaluated, a wider soft tissue band was related to minimal bone remodeling (Linkevicius et al. 2015). Lin et al. reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis that a lack of keratinized tissue (KT) around osseintegrated implants was associated with plaque accumulation, peri-implant tissue inflammation, soft tissue recession and attachment loss (Lin et al. 2013). Moreover, recent studies established the need of a minimal band of 2 mm of KT around osseointegrated implants, and showed that a band less than 2 mm was associated with more brushing discomfort, plaque accumulation, tissue inflammation and marginal bone apical displacement, concluding that a KT>2 mm had a protective effect on peri-implant tissues (Souza et al. 2015, Perussolo et al. 2018, Monje et al. 2019). Furthermore, peri-implant tissue diseases have also been related to an irregular compliance in situations of lack of KT (Monje et al. 2019). In the presence of peri-implant horizontal and/or vertical soft tissue deficiencias, soft tissue augmentation has been considered a priority, even prior or instead of bone augmentation (Burkhardt et al. 2008, Zucchelli et al. 2013).
This study will compare patient-reported outcomes, as well as the type and incidence of complications, and bone marginal loss after 12 months in implants installed using the transcrestal approach (tSFE) with an osseodensification system (performed according to the protocol by Huwais et al. 2018), or installed simultaneously using the lateral window technique (lSFE) with sinus lift. A blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial will be carried out with individuals over 18 years old, and with single tooth loss in the posterior maxilla, where the residual bone height (RBH) is 3 to 5 mm. The tSFE will be performed with osseodensification burs (Densa Bur, Versah, USA) using a counterclockwise motion, associated to synthetic biomaterial (hydroxyapatite and beta-tricalcium phosphate). The lSFE technique will require the sinus to be filled with the same biomaterial as the group using the other technique, and the antrostomy to be covered with a polydioxanone-based membrane. The patient's post-operatory perceptions will be evaluated by self-administered questionnaires quantifying social and professional isolation, physical appearance, duration and changes in quality of life, eating and speech, diet variations, and sleep deficiency for 2 weeks after the procedure. Pain will be assessed with the visual analogue scale (VAS). Immediately after prosthetic rehabilitation, cone beam tomography will be performed. Controls at 6 and 12 months will be performed. In these images, the marginal bone level in relation to a fixed reference point on the implants (upper part of the platform) will be measured mesially and distally in each implant, using a specific program (ImageJ - version 1.49v / NIH software - Bethesda, MD, USA). Generalized estimating equations will be used to compare the two treatments overtime. The significance level used will be 0.05.
This study is a randomised controlled clinical trial. The patients will be included for the placement of immediate implants with immediate crown placement, to replace maxillary anterior teeth. Any significant differences between the Co-Axis implant and a conventional conical implant will be evaluated.
The current trial aim was to evaluate clinically and radiographically the changes around dental implants inserted immediately in maxillary anterior esthetic zone using a novel combination of autogenous demineralized dentin graft (ADDG) with socket shield technique (SST) and compared this approach to socket shield technique (SST) alone. The present study included 50 participants, aged 20 to 45, with teeth that needed to be extracted. After Kafrelsheikh University research ethics committee approval, participants were randomized into 2 groups: the control group patients underwent immediate implantation using SS protocol, while the study group patients underwent the same procedure, but ADDG was created using the extracted palatal portion of the tooth; and then placed in the peri-implant gap defect.
The main aim of the present study is to investigate implant success rate after 5 years of function of immediate (Test group; within 7 days of implant placement) versus delayed (Control group; 8 weeks after implant placement) loading of two-pieces zirconia implant, placed in pristine bone without bone regeneration. Implant success rate will be defined according to Buser's criteria. Secondary endpoints: Marginal bone level (MBL) evaluation by means of standardized radiographs; Clinical evaluation of biological (e.g. Plaque Index, PI; Probing Pocket Depth, PPD, Bleeding on Probing, BOP; suppuration upon probing/palpation) and prosthetic/technical complications; Clinical evaluation of soft tissue width, keratinized tissue, marginal and interproximal soft tissue recession; Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) by questionnaire administration:
To report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with full-ceramic cantilever extensions (FDPCs) after a function time ≥ 12 months.
The impact of smoking on dental implant failure has been a constant topic of discussion for the past decade and the current literature confronts the inconclusive evidence of tobacco for a marginal bone loss risk factor. The aim of the present investigation is to determine the association between tobacco and marginal bone loss or implant failure in a sample of patients who had received implant-supported restorative therapy in the Dentistry Hospital of the University of Barcelona (Campus of Bellvitge). Considering that peri-implant marginal bone is essential for dental implant success, in this study we would like to establish the relationship between marginal bone loss around implants and smoking, in our own population study, in order to improve the prognosis of implant success in smoking patients. On the other hand, knowing the negative effect tobacco has on marginal bone loss in dental implants, we will be able to better predict peri-implant bone loss and reveal the probability of implant failure in short and long-term in smokers. By informing the patient correctly, we can raise awareness and create an additional reason for them to stop smoking, or at least reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke per day.