View clinical trials related to Dental Implant.
Filter by:Conventional loading protocol following implant placement 3 -6 months is considered the gold standard. However, early loading following 2 months after implant placement decreases the time and had a good survival rate.
The dental implant placed freehand with a digital planing is vastly increasing. The accuracy between the planned and the placed implants still not well determined. Between a single implant and a full mouth rehabilitation, the precision is very wide. A precision scale must be settled according to each indication in order to offer the clinician a safety and a predictability for his procedures.
To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of KS implants used to rehabilitate edentulous mandible with dental-retained overdentures, and to compare it with same treatment on TS implants
Dental implants have been on the market for several years and they are routinely used to replace single/multiple missing teeth with a high success rate. However, there is still a limited number of studies comparing the influence of timing of implant placement on wound healing. In addition, there is no data available on the signaling pathways and the expression of healing biomarkers involved in the early stages of osseointegration after immediate implant placement (IP) or delayed implant placement (DP). The primary objective of this study is to describe changes in the expression of inflammatory, angiogenesis and osseous biomarkers of saliva at 1, 3, 7, 15 and 30 days and of PICF at 3, 7, 15 and 30 days after immediate implant placement (IP) compared with delayed placement (DP).
The aim of the present prospective study was to investigate after a 2-year of follow-up any influence of the surgical technique, manual or digitally guided, on peri-implant marginal bone levels stability in implants placed 1 mm sub-crestally. Patients were treated by means of platform-switched implants provided with a 5 degrees internal conical connection and supporting single screw-retained fixed crowns. Marginal bone level (MBL) measured at prosthesis installation (t0) at 1 (t1), 2 (t2) and at 3 years of follow-up visit (t3) were considered. MBL change from t0 to t3 was investigated. The distance between the implant neck and the first radiographically detected bone to implant contact was considered to evaluate the bone loss. Two groups were considered: Test Group (GD) for implant sites treated with a digitally guided surgery procedure. Control Group (FH) for implants surgically placed without digitally guided surgery, respectively. All the procedures were performed by an experienced operator. Additionally, for both groups MBL changes were correlated to different supra-crestal soft tissue height (STH) amounts: less than 3 and ≥ 3 millimeters, respectively. Peri-implant soft tissue parameters such as probing depth (PPD), modified Sulcus Bleeding Index (mBI) and modified Plaque Index (mPI), were assessed for all the restorations included.
To evaluate bone healing at 4 months after lateral sinus augmentation with a 4:1 ratio of autologous bone and xenograft or xenograft alone. A radiographic volumetric, histomorphometric, and histologic analysis.
Background: Dental lasers and electrosurgical devices have been introduced a long time ago. However, limited studies are available concerning their use in the second stage of implant surgery, with the conventional surgical technique being the standard of care. Aim of this study: To evaluate clinically and radiographically soft and hard tissue healing associated with the use of electrosurgical and laser devices and compare them with conventional surgical techniques during second-stage implant surgery. Plan of the study: A randomized controlled clinical trial. The sample size will include patients who have an implant already placed and ready for second stage surgery recruited from the patient pool at the outpatient clinics. Materials and Methods: Patients will be randomly allocated into the three groups. In Group (A) implant will be exposed using the conventional surgical exposure techniques with a tissue punch, the cover screw will be removed, and the healing abutment placed. In group (B) implant will be uncovered using a diode laser (940nm) in contact type with a continuous mode at a power of 1.5 watts, the laser tip will be used in a circular motion to create a small opening which will be increased till large enough to expose and remove the cover screw and place the healing abutments. In group (C) the monopolar electrosurgical device will be used in the same way as the laser tip with additional care avoiding contacting the implants during exposure. The outcome: will be soft tissue healing and crestal marginal bone loss around implants. Soft tissue healing will be assessed on the operative day, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks using Landry index. Crestal bone loss will be assessed using a standardized periapical x-ray at baseline and after 1 month with periapical x-ray.
This study's goal is to evaluate the efficacy of traditional rehabilitation with freehand implant implantation of partly or totally edentulous patients utilizing flapless or mini-flap procedures vs. 3D implant design software and specialized surgical templates.
Multiple clinical studies have established high survival rates and tremendous predictability of dental implant treatment (Schiegnitz and Al-Nawas 2018). However, a pleasant esthetic outcome is the patient's primary expectation regarding implants in the esthetic zone (Vermylen et al. 2003)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 (Cosyn et al. 2012). 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.(Linkevicius et al. 2020). Limiting the extent of peri-implant bone loss has been recognized for decades to be an important aspect of long-term implant success, and stable peri-implant bone conditions play an important role in maintaining esthetics (Laurell and Lundgren, 2011). The opinion expressed widely in the scientific literature has been that subcrestal implant placement leads to increased crestal bone resorption. However, clinical studies addressing the implant placement depth in relation to crestal bone have been rare. Data on subcrestal versus crestal placement have mostly come from animal studies. Even fewer data are available regarding the effects of crestal versus subcrestal positioning of platform-switched implants (Cochran et al., 2009). This study aims to compare the effect of different vertical implant position with immediate provisionalization on marginal bone loss thin and thick vertical tissue biotype.
The aim of this randomized clinical trial to compare the implant positional accuracy of robotic system-assisted implant surgery with that of static system-assisted implant surgery. Patients will be recruited and randomly assigned to either the robotic surgery group or the static navigation surgery group to evaluate the accuracy of the implants in both groups and to compare patient-reported and physician-reported outcomes of the two approaches.