Zygomatic Versus Conventional Dental Implants in Augmented Maxillae
Zygomatic Versus Conventional Dental Implants in Augmented Maxillae: a Pragmatic Multicentre Randomised Clinical Trial.
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Glasgow, United Kingdom
- Glasgow Dental Hospital and School
-
Livingston, United Kingdom
- St John's Hospital
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- fully edentulous patients
- atrophic maxilla
- insufficient bone volume for placement of dental implants
- patients with no more than 4mm of bone height sub-antrally
Exclusion Criteria:
- general contraindications to implant surgery
- history of radiation therapy
- immunosuppressed/immunocompromised patients
- patients taking bisphosphonates
- poor oral hygiene
- patients with untreated periodontitis
- uncontrolled diabetes
- pregnancy
- alcohol/drug addiction
- lack of opposite occluding dentition/prosthesis
- restricted mouth opening.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
- Allocation: RANDOMIZED
- Interventional Model: PARALLEL
- Masking: NONE
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Zygomatic Implants
2-4 zygomatic implants inserted into edentulous maxilla with no augmentation/grafting prior to providing patient with dental prosthesis
|
|
|
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Bone Graft and Conventional implants
Edentulous maxilla which is deficient in bone is first grafted using bone grafting material derived from cows and then ordinary implants are placed into the augmented jaw bone approximately 6 monhts after grafting.
Patients will be provided with a dental prosthesis following osseointegration.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Implant success
Time Frame: 1 year following implant loading
|
Implant failure is defined by implant mobility +/- infection dictating implant removal.
|
1 year following implant loading
|
|
Implant success
Time Frame: 3 years following implant loading
|
Implant failure is defined by implant mobility +/- infection dictating implant removal
|
3 years following implant loading
|
|
Implant success
Time Frame: 5 years after implant loading
|
Implant failure is defined by implant mobility +/- infection dictating implant removal.
|
5 years after implant loading
|
|
Implant Success
Time Frame: 7 years after implant loading
|
Implant failure is defined by implant mobility +/- infection dictating implant removal
|
7 years after implant loading
|
|
Implant Success
Time Frame: 10 years after implant loading
|
Implant failure is defined by implant mobility +/- infection dictating implant removal
|
10 years after implant loading
|
|
Implant success
Time Frame: 15 years after implant loading
|
Implant failure is defined by implant mobility +/- infection dictating implant removal
|
15 years after implant loading
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Complications
Time Frame: 1 year
|
Biologic and prosthetic complications will be assessed. Biologic complications include perimplantitis, maxillary sinusitis,abscess, fistula, gingival dehiscence. Prosthetic complication: abutment fracture |
1 year
|
|
Change in marginal bone levels on intra oral radiographs
Time Frame: 1,3,5,7,10,15 years
|
To be evaluated on intraoral radiographs taken with the paralleling technique at implant placement, at delivery of the provisional prostheses, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15 years after loading.
|
1,3,5,7,10,15 years
|
|
Failure of augmentation procedure
Time Frame: 6 months after augmentation procedure
|
The augmentation procedure will be considered a failure if, after it has been performed, it will not be possible to place the planned implants in the augmented site.
|
6 months after augmentation procedure
|
|
Change in Oral Health impact profile OHIP-14
Time Frame: 1,3,5,7,10,15
|
To be filled in i)at patient enrolment prior to delivering any interventions, ii)12 weeks after delivery of the definitive prostheses and iii) 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15 years after loading.
Patients' number of days with total or partial impaired activity assessed at delivery of the provisional prosthesis A days of total impaired activity is one where patient is unable to perform his/her ordinary life activity including work.
A days of partial impaired activity is one where the patient is only partially able to perform his/her ordinary life activity including work.
|
1,3,5,7,10,15
|
|
Complications
Time Frame: 3 years
|
Biologic and prosthetic complications will be assessed.
Biologic complications include perimplantitis, maxillary sinusitis, abscess, fistula, gingival dehiscence Prosthetic complication: abutment fracture
|
3 years
|
|
Complications
Time Frame: 5 years
|
Biologic and prosthetic complications will be assessed.
Biologic complications include perimplantitis, maxillary sinusitis, abscess, fistula, gingival dehiscence Prosthetic complication: abutment fracture
|
5 years
|
|
Complications
Time Frame: 7 years
|
Biologic and prosthetic complications will be assessed.
Biologic complications include perimplantitis, maxillary sinusitis, abscess, fistula, gingival dehiscence Prosthetic complication: abutment fracture
|
7 years
|
|
Complications
Time Frame: 10 years
|
Biologic and prosthetic complications will be assessed.
Biologic complications include perimplantitis, maxillary sinusitis, abscess, fistula, gingival dehiscence Prosthetic complication: abutment fracture
|
10 years
|
|
Complications
Time Frame: 15 years
|
Biologic and prosthetic complications will be assessed.
Biologic complications include perimplantitis, maxillary sinusitis, abscess, fistula, gingival dehiscence Prosthetic complication: abutment fracture
|
15 years
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Chair: Victor Lopes, PhD, NHS Lothian
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Study Start
Primary Completion (ACTUAL)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (ACTUAL)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (ESTIMATE)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 13/SS/0106
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.