View clinical trials related to Implant Therapy.
Filter by:A total of 80 implants were placed in the posterior region of the maxilla in 40 patients in a split-mouth design. Bone quality was classified into type I, II, III, IV, or V as assessed preoperatively on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) . Primary implant stability was measured with insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (ISQ values). Secondary stability was measured by ISQ at abutment installation.
Systemically healthy volunteers with no active periodontal disease are recruited from referrals to the Dept. of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Biology of Implants, Aristotle Univ of Thessaloniki for implant therapy. After signing a consent form, participants will be randomized into two treatment groups. Group-A (NA=10) will receive crestal placement of implants following a two-stage protocol in combination with a biocomplex comprising autologous alveolar bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells free of animal derived reagents, produced in clean room facilities and seeded into collagen scaffolds enriched with autologous fibrin glue. In Group-B (NB=10) implants are placed on the alveolar crest following a two-stage protocol and the manufacturer's guidelines. Intra-surgical clinical and radiographic assessments are performed at the time of implant placement (T0) and at the two-stage surgery (T1). Changes in mucosa thickness, width of keratinized tissues, marginal bone and bone thickness at the surgical site will be determined at T0-T1. Groups will be further divided into two subgroups based on mucosal thickness of the surgical site at T0 [thin mucosa (≤2.5mm) for Groups-AI/-BI; thick mucosa (>2.5mm) for Groups-AII/-BII]. A linear mixed model for repeated measures will be used for data analyses to determine changes in the dimensions of the peri-implant soft and hard tissues, around two stage-implants placed either conventionally, or in combination with the biocomplex.
Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. In order to solve this problem several bone augmentation procedures have been developed. In principle the missing bone is taken from a donor site (for example the hip), transplanted where needed and then implants are placed. Sometimes, major bone grafting operations have to be undertaken under general anaesthesia requiring patients to be hospitalised for a few days. Some degree of morbidity related to the donor site must be expected, though more recently bone substitutes are used to minimize morbidity, and 2 to 3 surgical interventions may be needed before the implants can be functionally used. Sometimes patients have to wait more than 1 year before a prosthesis can be fixed to the implants and the total cost of the treatment is high. At the beginning of the 1990s a long screwshaped implant was developed by Professor PI Brånemark as an alternative to bone augmentation procedures: the zygomatic implant. Zygomatic implants are generally inserted through the palate to engage the body of the cheek bone. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior palate to engage the body of each cheek bone. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed prosthesis could be fitted the same day of their placement. Despite that zygomatic implants have been used for more than 20 years, their effectiveness has never been compared with conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae. The aim of the project is to compare the longtermclinical outcome of fullarch upper jaw bridges supported by zygomatic implants versus conventional implants placed in augmented bone in the palate.