NCT04022265

Brief Summary

The purpose was to evaluate histomorphometrically the early healing at implants installed in sites prepared with either a sonic device or conventional drills.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
16

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Feb 2016

Typical duration for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

February 4, 2016

Completed
1.6 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

August 30, 2017

Completed
4 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

December 15, 2017

Completed
1.6 years until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

July 11, 2019

Completed
6 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

July 17, 2019

Completed
Last Updated

July 19, 2019

Status Verified

July 1, 2019

Enrollment Period

1.6 years

First QC Date

July 11, 2019

Last Update Submit

July 17, 2019

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

  • New bone in contact with the implant surface

    The percentages of new bone in contact with the implant surface will be evaluated in the histomorphometric analysis

    After 2 weeks to evaluate the healing prior to load with a prosthesis

  • New bone in contact with the implant surface

    The percentages of new bone in contact with the implant surface will be evaluated in the histomorphometric analysis

    After 6 weeks, to evaluate the healing prior to load with a prosthesis

Secondary Outcomes (2)

  • The percentage of total mineralized bone in contact with the implant surface.

    After 2 weeks to evaluate the healing prior to load with a prosthesis

  • The percentage of total mineralized bone in contact with the implant surface.

    After 6 weeks to evaluate the healing prior to load with a prosthesis

Other Outcomes (2)

  • pre-existing (old) bone, soft tissues (marrow spaces, Haversian canals, BMUs canals), bone debris/ clot remnants, and vessels

    After 2 weeks to evaluate the early haling prior to load with a prosthesis

  • pre-existing (old) bone, soft tissues (marrow spaces, Haversian canals, BMUs canals), bone debris/ clot remnants, and vessels

    After 6 weeks to evaluate the early haling prior to load with a prosthesis

Study Arms (2)

Control Site -Drill site

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

The control sites (Drills) will be prepared with a lanceolate drill (FS 230, Sweden / Martina), with a maximum diameter of 2.3 mm,

Device: implant placement

Test site -sonic site

EXPERIMENTAL

test sites will be prepared with conical diamond inserts of increasing diameter (SFS99.000.014 to SFS99.000.024, Komet-Brasseler-GmbH, Germany) mounted on a sonic-air surgical instrument

Device: implant placement

Interventions

Full-thickness muco-periosteal flaps will be elevated, and the alveolar bone exposed to prepare the bed for the implant installation

Also known as: implant surgery, prosthesis
Control Site -Drill siteTest site -sonic site

Eligibility Criteria

Age25 Years - 80 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • presence of an edentulous atrophic zone in the posterior segment of the maxilla
  • height of the sinus floor ≥10 mm
  • ≥ 25 years of age;
  • smoking ≤10 cigarettes per day
  • good general health
  • no contraindication for oral surgical procedures
  • not being pregnant.

You may not qualify if:

  • presence of systemic disorders
  • chemotherapy or radiotherapy
  • smokers \>10 cigarettes per day
  • previous bone augmentation procedures in the same region.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Colombia

Cartagena, Cartagena, 5710, Colombia

Location

Related Publications (20)

  • Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Tawse-Smith A, Duncan WJ. Piezoelectric versus conventional implant site preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Apr;20(2):261-270. doi: 10.1111/cid.12555. Epub 2017 Nov 16.

  • Bengazi F, Lang NP, Canciani E, Vigano P, Velez JU, Botticelli D. Osseointegration of implants with dendrimers surface characteristics installed conventionally or with Piezosurgery(R). A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jan;25(1):10-5. doi: 10.1111/clr.12082. Epub 2012 Dec 12.

  • Vigano P, Botticelli D, Salata LA, Schweikert MT, Urbizo Velez J, Lang NP. Healing at implant sites prepared conventionally or by means of Sonosurgery (R). An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Apr;26(4):377-382. doi: 10.1111/clr.12348. Epub 2014 Feb 13.

  • Maurer P, Kriwalsky MS, Block Veras R, Vogel J, Syrowatka F, Heiss C. Micromorphometrical analysis of conventional osteotomy techniques and ultrasonic osteotomy at the rabbit skull. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jun;19(6):570-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01516.x.

  • Schaeren S, Jaquiery C, Heberer M, Tolnay M, Vercellotti T, Martin I. Assessment of nerve damage using a novel ultrasonic device for bone cutting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Mar;66(3):593-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.025. No abstract available.

  • Stacchi C, Berton F, Turco G, Franco M, Navarra CO, Andolsek F, Maglione M, Di Lenarda R. Micromorphometric analysis of bone blocks harvested with eight different ultrasonic and sonic devices for osseous surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;44(9):1143-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.04.024. Epub 2016 Apr 22.

  • Amghar-Maach S, Sanchez-Torres A, Camps-Font O, Gay-Escoda C. Piezoelectric surgery versus conventional drilling for implant site preparation: a meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Oct;62(4):391-396. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.04.004. Epub 2018 May 26.

  • Sendyk DI, de Oliveira NK, Pannuti CM, da Graca Naclerio-Homem M, Wennerberg A, Deboni MCZ. Conventional Drilling Versus Piezosurgery for Implant Site Preparation: A Meta-Analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2018 Oct;44(5):400-405. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00091. Epub 2018 Mar 27.

  • Stacchi C, Vercellotti T, Torelli L, Furlan F, Di Lenarda R. Changes in implant stability using different site preparation techniques: twist drills versus piezosurgery. A single-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Apr;15(2):188-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00341.x. Epub 2011 Apr 19.

  • Preti G, Martinasso G, Peirone B, Navone R, Manzella C, Muzio G, Russo C, Canuto RA, Schierano G. Cytokines and growth factors involved in the osseointegration of oral titanium implants positioned using piezoelectric bone surgery versus a drill technique: a pilot study in minipigs. J Periodontol. 2007 Apr;78(4):716-22. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060285.

  • Geminiani A, Papadimitriou DE, Ercoli C. Maxillary sinus augmentation with a sonic handpiece for the osteotomy of the lateral window: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Nov;106(5):279-83. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)00143-0.

  • Geminiani A, Weitz DS, Ercoli C, Feng C, Caton JG, Papadimitriou DE. A comparative study of the incidence of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus augmentation with a sonic oscillating handpiece versus a conventional turbine handpiece. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Apr;17(2):327-34. doi: 10.1111/cid.12110. Epub 2013 Jul 9.

  • Papadimitriou DE, Geminiani A, Zahavi T, Ercoli C. Sonosurgery for atraumatic tooth extraction: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Dec;108(6):339-43. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)00169-2.

  • Agabiti I, Cappare P, Gherlone EF, Mortellaro C, Bruschi GB, Crespi R. New surgical technique and distraction osteogenesis for ankylosed dental movement. J Craniofac Surg. 2014 May;25(3):828-30. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000737.

  • Agabiti I, Bernardello F, Nevins M, Wang HL. Impacted canine extraction by ridge expansion using air scaler surgical instruments: a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014 Sep-Oct;34(5):681-7. doi: 10.11607/prd.1884.

  • Agabiti I, Botticelli D. Two-Stage Ridge Split at Narrow Alveolar Mandibular Bone Ridges. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Oct;75(10):2115.e1-2115.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.05.015. Epub 2017 May 24.

  • Heinemann F, Hasan I, Kunert-Keil C, Gotz W, Gedrange T, Spassov A, Schweppe J, Gredes T. Experimental and histological investigations of the bone using two different oscillating osteotomy techniques compared with conventional rotary osteotomy. Ann Anat. 2012 Mar 20;194(2):165-70. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2011.10.005. Epub 2011 Oct 17.

  • Caneva M, Lang NP, Calvo Guirado JL, Spriano S, Iezzi G, Botticelli D. Bone healing at bicortically installed implants with different surface configurations. An experimental study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Mar;26(3):293-9. doi: 10.1111/clr.12475. Epub 2014 Sep 15.

  • Ferri M, Lang NP, Angarita Alfonso EE, Bedoya Quintero ID, Burgos EM, Botticelli D. Use of sonic instruments for implant biopsy retrieval. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Nov;26(11):1237-43. doi: 10.1111/clr.12466. Epub 2014 Aug 11.

  • Botticelli D, Lang NP. Dynamics of osseointegration in various human and animal models - a comparative analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Jun;28(6):742-748. doi: 10.1111/clr.12872. Epub 2016 May 23.

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Alveolar Bone Loss

Interventions

Prostheses and Implants

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Bone ResorptionBone DiseasesMusculoskeletal DiseasesPeriodontal AtrophyPeriodontal DiseasesMouth DiseasesStomatognathic Diseases

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Equipment and Supplies

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
TRIPLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Masking Details
Each patient will receive two mini-implants, installed in recipient sites prepared in the distal segments of the maxilla either with a sonic device or drills. The two recipient sites will be selected prior the surgery, while the type of site preparation will be randomly decided. A researcher, neither involved in the selection of the patients nor in the surgical and prosthetic treatment, carried out electronically the randomization (randomization.com). Sealed opaque envelopes will be prepared and opened at the time of surgery and they will report the position of the sonic sites so that the surgeon will be masked about site preparation type until the surgery. The site will be indicated as mesial or distal position if the two sites will be located in the same quadrant of the maxilla, or as right or left if they will be located in opposite quadrants of the maxilla.
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: Clinical Trial
Sponsor Type
NETWORK
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

July 11, 2019

First Posted

July 17, 2019

Study Start

February 4, 2016

Primary Completion

August 30, 2017

Study Completion

December 15, 2017

Last Updated

July 19, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-07

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Will be shared after publication

Locations