View clinical trials related to Dental Implant Failed.
Filter by: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.
Implant placement in posterior maxilla is often compromised or impossible due to atrophy of the bone and pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus. Thus, alveolar ridge augmentation is frequently necessary. The most commonly used method to augment the maxillary region involves the maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with autogenous bone graft or bone substitute. Harvesting of autogenous bone graft is associated with risk of donor site morbidity and unpredictable resorption of the graft. Thus, bone substitutes alone or in combination with autogenous bone are used increasingly. Symbios xenograft granules is a new porcine bone mineral. Long-term studies have demonstrated that xenograft contains osteoconductive properties and is a safe grafting material. MSFA with xenograft alone or in combination with autogenous bone have shown high implant survival with new bone formation. In contrast, the maxillary sinus cavities possess significant potential for bone regeneration without the use of additional bone grafts or bone substitutes due to the principle of periosteal guided bone regeneration and surrounding bony walls. Bone regeneration after maxillary sinus membrane elevation with the use of coagulum as grafting material has shown high implant survival with new bone formation, as documented in reviews and short-term studies. The objective is to test the H0-hypothesis of no difference in the long-term implant outcome after MSFA with 1:1 mixture of autogenous bone graft and Symbios xenograft (control) compared with the coagulum (test). Forty consecutively healthy patients with a missing posterior maxillary tooth will be allocated to test or control. Implants will be inserted simultaneously with the MSFA. Clinical and/or radiographical evaluation using periapical radiographs and Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) will be performed preoperatively, immediate postoperatively, before abutment connection, after prosthetic rehabilitation, and one year after loading to assess the implant treatment outcome and the volumetric changes of the augmented area. The primary outcome will include survival of suprastructures, survival of implants, volumetric stability of the augmented area, peri-implant marginal bone level, oral health related quality of life, and complications related to the two treatment modalities.
Implant placement in the posterior part of the maxilla is frequently compromised due to atrophy of the alveolar process. Therefore, alveolar ridge augmentation is frequently necessary before or in conjunction with implant placement. The most commonly used method to augment the maxillary premolar and molar region involves the maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) with autogenous bone graft or a bone substitute. However, the use of autogenous bone grafts is associated with risk at the donor site morbidity and unpredictable graft resorption. Consequently, short implants are used increasingly to eliminate the need for bone augmentation. However, long-term studies comparing short implants and standard implants in conjunction with MSFA supporting single crown restoration in the posterior maxilla are missing. The primary outcome measures include survival of implant and suprastructures, peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL), professional evaluation of the suprastructure and soft tissue using pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES), patient satisfaction using visual analogue scale (VAS), and oral health related quality of life using oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measure include evaluation of the complication rate related to the two treatment modalities.
The objective of this study is to compare two surgical techniques for the treatment of the maxillary and mandibular bone atrophies.. Therefore, the main purpose is to compare the (i) the percentage of post-operative complications (ii) the three-dimensional bone gain with customized titanium meshes (test group - the medical device is digitally designed and made with customized laser sintering modality, customized to the defect of each patient) and with titanium-reinforced PTFE mesh (control group - the medical device is cut, shaped, and manually modelled to the patient's defect by the operator himself.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the soft-tissue profile around a single-tooth implant in the anterior maxilla utilizing the PES after implant uncovering using "M" flap versus I-shaped incision.The primary objective is evaluation of esthetic outcomes around implant using PES. Hypothesis: The use of I-shaped incision exposure technique will result in better esthetic outcomes.
In patients that are going to receive a dental implant in the posterior mandible (distal from canine), does the subperiosteal anesthetic technique with Articaine 1:100.000 4 % Epinephrine compared to the loco-regional one, produces the same analgesia during surgery ?