Single vs. Two Implants for Mandibular Overdentures (SIMO/TIMO)
Clinical and Radiographic Comparison of Symphyseal and Parasymphyseal Single Implant Versus Two Implants in Complete Mandibular Overdentures
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Assuit, Egypt
- Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Assuit
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- patients with a class I Maxillo-mandibular jaw relationship
- patients with residual ridges had normal morphology, were free from severe bony undercuts or flabby tissue, and were covered by firm mucoperiosteum.
- A cone beam CT of the lower arch was made to detect the presence of pathological lesions, remaining roots, or impacted teeth in the arch and evaluate both bone quality and quantity, especially in the area of interest
Exclusion Criteria:
- patients with current chemotherapy or radiotherapy, bleeding disorders, uncontrolled diabetes
- patients with a history of drug therapy that interferes with bone resorption or deposition (e.g., the prolonged use of glucocorticoids, antiresorptive medications, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and proton-pump inhibitors),
- Those with any physical reasons that could affect follow-up, psychiatric problems, heavy smokers, drug or alcohol addicts, immunocompromised patients, abnormal jaw relationship, inadequate inter arch space.
- patients with temporomandibular disorders and para-functional habits (e.g., bruxing and clenching).
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Active Comparator: One median implant
One median implant to retain mandibular complete overdenture
|
Placement of titanium endosteal root form threaded tapered two-piece dental implant to assist mandibular complete overdenture
|
|
Active Comparator: One parasymphyseal implant
One parasymphyseal implant to retain mandibular complete overdenture
|
Placement of titanium endosteal root form threaded tapered two-piece dental implant to assist mandibular complete overdenture
|
|
Active Comparator: Two implants
Two implants in the intraforaminal distance to retain mandibular complete overdenture
|
Placement of titanium endosteal root form threaded tapered two-piece dental implant to assist mandibular complete overdenture
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in the plaque index
Time Frame: The plaque index was documented at follow-up visits on the day of loading, three, six, and nine months later for each implant.
|
The presence and amount of plaque were determined at the four sites around the implant (mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual) and scored from zero to three.
Grade 0: No plaque by probing.
Grade 1: film of plaque detected by probing.
Grade 2: Visible plaque with the naked eye.
Grade 3: abundant soft material in the sulcus, mucosal margin, and adjacent implant surface.
|
The plaque index was documented at follow-up visits on the day of loading, three, six, and nine months later for each implant.
|
|
Change in the pocket depth
Time Frame: The pocket depth was documented at follow-up visits on the day of loading, three, six, and nine months later for each implant.
|
The pocket depth was measured by inserting a graduated plastic periodontal probe between the oral sulcular epithelium and the implant with minimal pressure at the midpoint of the four surfaces.
The distance from the bottom of the sulcus to the mucosal margin was measured and recorded to the nearest millimeter; the mean of four readings was considered the pocket depth for this group at the chosen time
|
The pocket depth was documented at follow-up visits on the day of loading, three, six, and nine months later for each implant.
|
|
Change in the bleeding index
Time Frame: The bleeding index was documented at follow-up visits on the day of loading, three, six, and nine months later for each implant.
|
The bleeding index was assessed for the four surfaces while measuring the pocket depth if the bleeding was visible after probing within 20 seconds.
It is typically scored as 0 (no bleeding), 1 (bleeding point), 2 (single line of blood), or 3 (heavy or profuse bleeding).
The mean of four readings was considered the bleeding index for this group at the chosen time
|
The bleeding index was documented at follow-up visits on the day of loading, three, six, and nine months later for each implant.
|
|
Change in bone level around implant
Time Frame: Immediately after loading, six months, and twelve months later
|
Calculating average bone height involves dividing the sum of buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal bone height by 4. The real bone loss can be calculated by subtraction from the implant length
|
Immediately after loading, six months, and twelve months later
|
|
Change in the masticatory efficiency
Time Frame: The masticatory efficiency was documented at follow-up visits one month and three months after the overdenture insertion
|
The masticatory efficiency was assessed when the patient ate three different types of food (carrot, apple, and banana) with varying degrees of hardness, cut into standardized pieces (1 cm cube each).
The collected data included the following measurements: the chewing stroke count before the first swallow, the chewing stroke count until the oral cavity is empty of food, the count of swallows until the oral cavity is empty of food, the time estimated in seconds until the first swallow, and the time estimated in seconds until the oral cavity is empty of food.
|
The masticatory efficiency was documented at follow-up visits one month and three months after the overdenture insertion
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Chair: Ahmed B El-okl, Professor, Removable Prosthodontics, Al-Azhar University, Asuit, EGY
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
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 (Estimated)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimated)
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
- AUAREC20210006-5
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
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.