View clinical trials related to Dental Implant.
Filter by:The loss of a tooth leads to a series of biological changes in the tissues, resulting in bone resorption and gingival collapse. To avoid these problems, it has been proposed to place immediate post-extraction implants, allowing a reduction in treatment time and the number of surgeries, as well as better maintenance of the tissues. This technique can be performed with standard abutments after implant placement or, more recently, the use of temporary abutments has been proposed.
A closed sinus augmentation is performed for dental implant placement.
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.
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.
NDI represent an advisable treatment option when the mesio-distal space is compromised. In a recent retrospective study with a follow-up of 8 years in which they wanted to evaluate the long-term survival, complications, peri-implant conditions, marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction of fixed dental prostheses supported by NDI in the posterior area. They observe a survival rate of 97% and absence of prosthetic complications after the study period time. More recently, Souza et al. performed a prospective randomized split mouth study with 3 years follow-up with the aim of comparing marginal bone level, implant survival and success rates and prosthesis success rates of NDI and SDI placed in the posterior area of the mandible to support single prosthesis. They observed an implant survival rate of 100% for both groups at 1 and 3 years. The prosthesis success rate at 1 and 3 years was of 95.4% and 100%, respectively. NDI present a high survival rate on the evaluated studies. Therefore, the aim of the first study is to compare the patient related outcomes, implants and prostheses success and survival rates of pure titanium NDI versus SDI with simultaneous bone regeneration in narrow alveolar ridges at posterior areas of the maxilla and the mandible.
With the improvement of people's living standards, implant restoration has become an ideal method for partially and completely edentulous patients. Traditional classic implant theory suggests a 3-6 month undisturbed healing period is required before permanent loading can take place. However, this loading plan takes a long time and cannot timely meet the chewing function and aesthetic needs of patients with anterior maxillary tooth loss. Currently, with the continuous improvement of implant design and surface treatment techniques, the speed of implant-bone integration has been increasing, and early loading has gradually become a clinical option. After carefully reviewing the research conducted by domestic and international scholars on early loading of implants in the anterior maxillary region , we found that the cases included in the articles were patients with anterior maxillary tooth loss who did not require simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) surgery. It is well known that patients with anterior maxillary tooth loss often have significant alveolar bone defects. In such cases, GBR techniques are commonly used to repair the bone defect. However, due to the lack of relevant studies, the clinical loading strategies for implant cases with accompanying bone defects are relatively conservative. Clinically, a delayed loading restoration strategy is usually employed, which typically requires a delay of 6 months or even longer. However, delayed loading increases the patient's edentulous time, affects the function and stability of the dental arch, and increases the patient's psychological burden. Therefore, whether an early loading strategy can be used for implant cases with alveolar bone defects in the anterior maxillary region has become a key issue in clinical practice. However, there is few research reported on the timing and effectiveness of early loading of implants in the anterior maxillary region with accompanying alveolar bone defects. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effects of early loading in patients with anterior maxillary single-wall bone defects through a prospective clinical randomized controlled trial.
We plan to conduct this randomized clinical trial to compare the implant positional accuracy of robotic system-assisted implant surgery with that of conventional freehand implant surgery. Patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned to either an experimental group that underwent robotic surgery or a control group that underwent freehand surgery, to evaluate the accuracy of implant in both groups.
Studies on facial trauma are essential to establish an appropriate treatment approach, assess the ability to restore functions and seek ways of prevention. Among craniofacial injuries, fractures of the zygomatic complex are the most frequent, occurring in 25-30% of cases. Statistical analysis shows that traffic collisions (41%), domestic accidents (23%) and sports accidents (18%) are the main causes. Dental implants have emerged as a rehabilitative alternative for these patients, being considered the first choice for individuals who have lost all or part of their dental arch. In addition to providing a better quality of life, it reconstitutes masticatory function, self-esteem and phonetics. Understanding the importance of evaluating the performance of dental implants and considering the responsibility for the health of patients, there was a need to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Standard Internal Hexagon Implant System (HIS), Large Internal Hexagon (HIL), Flexcone (FC) , Mini Flexcone (FCM) and Morse Internal Hexagon, from DSP. In this prospective study, 1053 implants will be included. To be eligible, patients can be of both sexes, be 18 years of age or older, any race and gender, have partial or total tooth loss, present good local and general health conditions and psychological disposition to undergo common oral surgery procedures. under local anesthesia and healthy edentulous region as they will be subsequently submitted to surgical procedures using the DSP Implant System. Electronic data collection and management will be performed using the REDCap software, with categorical variables being described as absolute and relative frequencies and continuous ones being tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Osseointegration percentages between 30 days and 6 months will also be calculated. Other efficacy outcomes and incidence of adverse events will be estimated with 95% confidence intervals. As a result, from the strengthening of product evaluation actions, it is expected to demonstrate that the implant has a good safety and efficacy profile to be offered to the population.
The purpose of the study is to investigate the significance difference between low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) versus low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on osseointegration, soft tissue healing, pain pressure threshold and oral health related quality of life in patients post dental implant surgery.