View clinical trials related to Dental Implant Failed.
Filter by:Implant stability is critical to successful osseointegration, the direct structural connection between the dental implant surface and bone. Implant stability must therefore be measured to evaluate implant success. The study evaluated the osseointegration of different sizes with two devices measuring stability with different methods.
The study aims to evaluate the clinical performance (implant and prosthetic survival/ success rates) of a novel implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis design: the dual-cantilevered single implant bridge (T-Bridge) made out of monolithic zirconia bonded to a titanium base abutment (Variobase abutments)
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.
A total of 34 participants, who require replacement of an anterior or posterior single tooth with dental implant, will be randomly allocated to two equal sized groups. In the control group, the osteotomy site preparation will be prepared by using conventional surgical drills, while the test group site preparation will involve the use of Densah™ Burs (Versah Co., LLC., USA) as per the osseodensification protocol. In addition to evaluating implant stability, the trial will also report on implant and patient outcomes at various time points.
This study is conducted A- To investigate that PRF loaded with osteopromotive pharmacological drug can be a great aid in implant rehabilitation, and whether it could be a replacement for the other high price bone graft materials or not. This will be done through: 1. Measuring bone changes around the implant by cone beam 2. Measuring change in bone density around the implants B- Evaluate the effect of statins on osteoblasts activity and expression of various osteogenic products in vitro.
Digital panoramas will be made to assess the implant sites. The included patients are assigned to their respective groups randomly. After implant submerging in the study group 2 layers of hemostatic resorbable gelatin sponge is fixed in the implant site; while with the control group PTFE is fixed. After 3 weeks the PTFE was removed while the gelatin sponge should be resorbed. 3 months later the implants are to be assessed for stability and a reverse torque test was used to confirm osseointegration during uncovering. Follow-up appointments at 1,3 weeks and 1,2 & 3 months were planned.
Multiple clinical studies have established high survival rates and tremendous predictability of dental implant treatment. However, a pleasant esthetic outcome is the patient's primary expectation regarding implants in the esthetic zone and several esthetic factors have been evaluated to contribute to an esthetic appearance. Among these, the midfacial soft tissue level is considered to be one of the most important factors; Cosyn and co-workers reported that among factors including soft tissue phenotype, the midfacial recession was associated with the position of the implant . Therefore, subcrestal implant placement has been advocated as it has been associated with the reduction of crestal bone loss in cases with decreased soft tissue thickness. If the vertical soft tissues on the crest of the alveolar ridge are 2 mm or less at the time of implant placement, implants will undergo unavoidable bone resorption by establishing sufficient biologic protection. Another option was proposed by Linkevicius et al, who introduced the subcrestal implant placement as a method to accommodate the problem of thin soft tissues. Research question: Does the placement of delayed implants with different vertical depth affect the marginal bone loss with immediate provisionalization?
Alveolar ridge expansion is suggested for alveolar crest thicknesses of 3-5 mm. Osseodensification (OD) and screw expansion (SE) techniques have been utilized to expand narrow alveolar ridges (NAR). This study aims to compare the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values of endosteal dental implants (DIs) inserted into NAR via osseodensification versus manual screw expansion.
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: