View clinical trials related to Edentulous Alveolar Ridge.
Filter by:Our study looks into how the thickness of the gum tissue affects the health of the bone around dental implants over ten years. We include 59 people and divide them into three groups based on their gum tissue thickness. Some have naturally thin gums, some have thin gums that were made thicker with a special procedure, and some already had thick gums. We try to find out if having thicker gums, whether naturally or through enhancement, can help keep the bone around dental implants healthy in the long run.
The present randomized controlled trial aims to assess the influence of a new prosthodontics device (Gingival Former Abutment -GFA) on peri-implant bone loss and soft tissue changes and health after subcrestal oral implant placement. The participants will be divided in two groups and receive either crestal implant placement and traditional healing abutment or subcrestal implant placement and GFA. Clinical and radiographic examination will be performed at implant placement surgery, prosthetic load, 6 and 12 months follow-up.
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the use of a magnetodynamic instrument (Magnetic Mallet®, Metaergonomica, Turbigo, Italy) to perform a horizontal bone expansion in edentulous sites that need to be rehabilitated with a dental implant.
The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of Bio-Hpp versus Co-Cr custom abutments in fixed-detachable implant-supported mandibular partial dentures clinically and radiographically in Class I Kennedy classification (split-mouth study)
Objective of the present study was to assess the peri-implant soft tissue profiles between argon plasma pre-treated (PT) and non-treated (NPT) abutments by comparing clinical and histological parameters 2 months after abutment placement.
A prospective observational study guided by the guidelines of Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Study in Epidemiology (STROBE) in 2014, that will be conducted to evaluate implant stability using three devices; Osstell®, Peiotest® and AnyCheck® and comparing the results.
To investigate clinical outcomes of transcrestal maxillary sinus floor elevation performed with an injectable xenograft in gel form, analyzing variables possibly influencing the results. Patients needing unilateral sinus floor elevation (residual crestal height <5 mm) for the placement of a single implant were enrolled. Xenograft in gel form was injected through a crestal antrostomy in order to elevate sinus membrane and fill the sub-antral space. Simultaneous implant placement was performed when adequate primary stability was achievable. Graft height was measured immediately after surgery (T0) and after six months of healing (T1). Univariate and multivariate regression models were built to assess associations between clinical variables with implant survival and graft height at T1.
Dental implant supported screwed prosthetic rehabilitations are associated to several advantages, as a minimal occlusal spaced and easier hygiene and maintenance. In this sense, screwed rehabilitations have been associated with lower frequency of biological and technical complications. Nevertheless, the screwing process results in the formation of a prosthetic chimney that requieres an appropriate sealing protocol. This protocol needs to include a material for the protection of the screw head. Nowadays, there is a lack of materials for this intended use with marketing authorisation. Several materials have been tested in the bibliography including PTFE, although there are not high quality studies. In this context, this clinical investigation aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety os a PTFE-based product (MAFILL) for the sealing of prosthetic chimneys and the protection of the screw head.
comparing immediate functionally loaded implants and immediate non functionally loaded implants in the posterior mandibular region on bases of bone density and bone loss evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) of split-mouth design was to compare patient preference and effectiveness of two different techniques for lifting the maxillary sinus: the crestal approach versus the lateral window approach.