Submerged vs. Nonsubmerged Single Laser-microgrooved Dental Implants.

September 14, 2018 updated by: Renzo Guarnieri, University of Roma La Sapienza

Submerged vs. Nonsubmerged Single Laser-microgrooved Implants. Clinical and Radiographic Results at 3-years of RCT With Split Mouth Design.

Aim: to evaluate and compare radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL) and soft tissue parameters around submerged/two-stage and nonsubmerged/one-stage single implants with same tapered body design and surface, same thread design and distance, and same collar surface (laser-microgrooved), after 3 years of loading.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Materials and methods: 20 submerged/two-stage implants and 20 nonsubmerged/one stage implants were placed randomly with a split mouth design, in 20 partially edentulous patients. Radiographic and clinical examinations were carried out at the implant placement (Baseline, BSL), at the delivery of prosthetic restorations (T0), and at each year of the follow-up period (T1, T2, T3). Plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and gingival recession (REC) were recorded. Radiographic marginal bone levels (MBL) were assessed at the mesial (MI) and distal (DI) aspect of implant sites. In addition, the influence of keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) on MBL was investigated.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

20

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Italy
      • Roma, Italy, 00100
        • Università La Sapienza

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 80 years (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, good general health, without contraindications to implant surgery, presence of at least two non-adjacent edentulous sites requiring implant therapy. Each implant site had to be located in the left or right hemi-posterior mandible or in the left or right hemi- posterior maxilla.

-

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Exclusion criteria were: implants placed into regenerated bone, lack of a periodontal chart and periapical radiograph at the beginning and at the end of follow-up period, alcohol and drug abuse, pregnancy, or uncontrolled metabolic disorders, tobacco smoking (> 10 cigarettes/day), full mouth plaque score (FMPS), and full mouth bleeding score /FMBS) ≥25%, periodontally compromised patients (with attachment loss of 3 mm and/or radiographic bone loss of 30% of root length in 30% of sites), teeth adjacent to the implant area (mesial and distal) affected by untreated periodontal and/or endodontic infections.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: SEQUENTIAL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: dental implants
microgrooved dental implants submerged
Device: Microgrooved dental implants
Dental Implant placement
EXPERIMENTAL: dentale implants
microgrooved dental implants nonsubmerged
Device: Microgrooved dental implants
Dental Implant placement

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
radiographic marginal bone loss
Time Frame: 3 years
3 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

University of Roma La Sapienza

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

  • Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; 1:CD003815 Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. (1977) Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Scandinavian Journal of Pasticic and Reconstructive Surgery; 16: 1-99. . Akcali A, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Sun C, Petrie A, Nibali L, & Donos N. (2017) What is the effect of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone loss around dental implants? A systematic review. Clinical Oral Implant Research; 28, 1045-1053. Becktor JP, Isaksson S, Billström C. (2007) A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: Conventional loading using fixed prostheses. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research ;9:179-185. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I,Welander M, Lang NP, Lindhe J. (2007) Morphogenesis of the peri-implant mucosa: An experimental study in dogs. Clinical Oral Implant Research; 18:1-8. Broggini N, McManus LM, Hermann JS, Medina RU, Oates TW, Schenk RK, et al. (2003). Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. Journal of Dental Research 82:232-237. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, et al. (1997) Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research; 8:161-172. Cecchinato D, Olsson C, Lindhe J. (2004) Submerged or non-submerged healing of endosseous implants to be used in the rehabilitation of partially dentate patients. Journal of Clinical Periodontoly ;31:299-308. Cordaro L, Torsello F, Roccuzzo M (2009). Clinical outcome of submerged vs. non-submerged implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. Clinical Oral Implants Research ;20:1307-1313. Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. (2005) Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 1:CD003815 Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Chew YS, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. (2009) One-stage versus two-stage implant placement. A Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials. European Journal of Oral Implantology. Summer;2(2):91-9. Hermann, J.S., Cochran, D.L., Nummikoski, P.V. & Buser, D. (1997) Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Journal of Periodontology 68: 1117-1130. Jansen, V.K., Conrads, G. & Richter, E.-J. (1997) Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 12: 527-540 Jung RE, Jones AA, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG, Schoolfield J, Buser D, Hämmerle CH, Cochran DL (2008) The influence of nonmatching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs. Journal of Periodontology. Feb;79(2):260-70. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, & Puisys A. (2009) The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: A 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implant; 24, 712-719. Linkevicius T, Apse, P, Grybauskas S, & Puisys A. (2010) Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: A 1-year pilot study. Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery; 68, 2272-2277.
  • Guarnieri R, Di Nardo D, Di Giorgio G, Miccoli G, Testarelli L. Clinical and radiographics results at 3 years of RCT with split-mouth design of submerged vs. nonsubmerged single laser-microgrooved implants in posterior areas. Int J Implant Dent. 2019 Dec 18;5(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s40729-019-0196-0.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

September 14, 2018

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

September 14, 2018

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

September 14, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 14, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 14, 2018

First Posted (ACTUAL)

September 18, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

September 18, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 14, 2018

Last Verified

September 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 4597

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

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.

Clinical Trials on Partially Edentulous Maxilla, Mandible

Clinical Trials on Microgrooved dental implants

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in India

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe