Comparative Evaluation of Osseodensification Versus Conventional Implant Site

NCT04189718 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: 02_D012_80824
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 22
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The present study is a human, prospective, randomised controlled clinical trial conducted to explore and compare the clinical and radiological outcome of Osseodensification protocol with conventional implant site preparation protocol. The trial is in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria, 2010.

Conditions

Bone Density; Implant Stability

Keywords

hounsfield

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• primary implant stability

  the primary implant stability was measured during implant placement using Insertion Torque Value(ITV).

  immediate post implant placement

• change from baseline in bone density

  A Multislice CT was used for scanning the implant site pre operatively, just after implant placement and 1 year post implant placement to measure the change in bone density. It was performed using a tube voltage of 120 kV(kilovolt) and a tube current of 40 mA(milliampere). The occlusal plane of the patient was set perpendicular to the floor base using ear rods. The axial images was reconstructed with 0.625 mm thick slices at 0.625 mm interval and a 1.75 mm field of view(FOV) image analysis software

  1 year

• change from baseline in crestal bone level

  Digital radiographs (radiovisiograph-RVG) were standardised using radiographic paralleling technique and positioning device and custom fabricated bite-block at baseline and follow up.Mesial and distal peri-implant radiographic bone level were recorded in millimetres on the digital radiographs using Digimiser image

  1 year

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• change from baseline in keratinized mucosa width

  1 year

• change from baseline in ridge width

  1 year

• Patient reported pain evaluation (Visual Analog Scale)

  1 year

Study Arms (2)

osseodensification protocol

EXPERIMENTAL

Experimental: In the test group, osteotomy site preparation was performed using Osseodensification technique at 1100 rpm and implant was placed

Procedure: osseodensification protocol; Procedure: conventional implant site preparation protocol

conventional implant site preparation protocol

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Control: in the control group, osteotomy site was prepared using conventional drilling protocol at 1100 rpm and implant was placed.

Procedure: osseodensification protocol; Procedure: conventional implant site preparation protocol

Interventions

osseodensification protocol PROCEDURE

Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with osseodensification protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in counter clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.

Also known as: Densah bur protocol, Osseodensification technique

conventional implant site preparation protocol; osseodensification protocol

conventional implant site preparation protocol PROCEDURE

Local anaesthesia was administered and mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Implant osteotomies was performed with sequential drilling with conventional implant site preparation protocol at 1100 rpm. The pilot drill was used in clockwise direction and the other sequential drills were used in clockwise direction under copious irrigation. Flap closure was achieved using 3-0 silk sutures to protect the implant site.

Also known as: standard drilling technique, regular drilling technique

conventional implant site preparation protocol; osseodensification protocol

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 75 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Single/multiple missing teeth in the maxillary anterior/posterior region.
• Bone density of D2 or D3 (Carl E.Misch).
• Patients between 18-75 years.
• Patients who demonstrate good plaque control (PI\<10%) and showing good compliance.
• Patients willing to participate in the study.

You may not qualify if:

• Insufficient density or height of residual ridge.
• Patients with bleeding disorder or on anticoagulant therapy.
• Pregnant and lactating females.
• Patients with history of smoking.
• Use of systemic antibiotics in the past 3 months.
• Patients treated with any medication known to cause periodontal changes.
• Drug and alcohol abuse.
• Occlusal interferences.
• Patients with history of titanium allergy.
• Immunocompromised state and debilitating disease.
• Malignancy or radiotherapy/chemotherapy for malignancy.
• Systemic diseases that would negatively influence wound healing.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences & Hospital: lead

Study Sites (1)

Krishnadevaraya college of dental sciences

Bangalore, Karnataka, 562157, India

Location

Related Publications (18)

• Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Podaliri Vulpiani M. New Osseodensification Implant Site Preparation Method to Increase Bone Density in Low-Density Bone: In Vivo Evaluation in Sheep. Implant Dent. 2016 Feb;25(1):24-31. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000358.

  PMID: 26584202 RESULT

• Lahens B, Neiva R, Tovar N, Alifarag AM, Jimbo R, Bonfante EA, Bowers MM, Cuppini M, Freitas H, Witek L, Coelho PG. Biomechanical and histologic basis of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implant placement in low density bone. An experimental study in sheep. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016 Oct;63:56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.06.007. Epub 2016 Jun 10.

  PMID: 27341291 RESULT

• Lahens B, Lopez CD, Neiva RF, Bowers MM, Jimbo R, Bonfante EA, Morcos J, Witek L, Tovar N, Coelho PG. The effect of osseodensification drilling for endosteal implants with different surface treatments: A study in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019 Apr;107(3):615-623. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34154. Epub 2018 Aug 6.

  PMID: 30080320 RESULT

• Witek L, Neiva R, Alifarag A, Shahraki F, Sayah G, Tovar N, Lopez CD, Gil L, Coelho PG. Absence of Healing Impairment in Osteotomies Prepared via Osseodensification Drilling. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019 Jan/Feb;39(1):65-71. doi: 10.11607/prd.3504.

  PMID: 30543729 RESULT

• Witek L, Alifarag AM, Tovar N, Lopez CD, Gil LF, Gorbonosov M, Hannan K, Neiva R, Coelho PG. Osteogenic parameters surrounding trabecular tantalum metal implants in osteotomies prepared via osseodensification drilling. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019 Nov 1;24(6):e764-e769. doi: 10.4317/medoral.23108.

  PMID: 31655837 RESULT

• Alifarag AM, Lopez CD, Neiva RF, Tovar N, Witek L, Coelho PG. Atemporal osseointegration: Early biomechanical stability through osseodensification. J Orthop Res. 2018 Sep;36(9):2516-2523. doi: 10.1002/jor.23893. Epub 2018 Mar 30.

  PMID: 29537128 RESULT

• Tian JH, Neiva R, Coelho PG, Witek L, Tovar NM, Lo IC, Gil LF, Torroni A. Alveolar Ridge Expansion: Comparison of Osseodensification and Conventional Osteotome Techniques. J Craniofac Surg. 2019 Mar/Apr;30(2):607-610. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004956.

  PMID: 30507887 RESULT

• Lopez CD, Alifarag AM, Torroni A, Tovar N, Diaz-Siso JR, Witek L, Rodriguez ED, Coelho PG. Osseodensification for enhancement of spinal surgical hardware fixation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017 May;69:275-281. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.01.020. Epub 2017 Jan 13.

  PMID: 28113132 RESULT

• Huwais S, Meyer EG. A Novel Osseous Densification Approach in Implant Osteotomy Preparation to Increase Biomechanical Primary Stability, Bone Mineral Density, and Bone-to-Implant Contact. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan/Feb;32(1):27-36. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4817. Epub 2016 Oct 14.

  PMID: 27741329 RESULT

• Stavropoulos A, Cochran D, Obrecht M, Pippenger BE, Dard M. Effect of Osteotomy Preparation on Osseointegration of Immediately Loaded, Tapered Dental Implants. Adv Dent Res. 2016 Mar;28(1):34-41. doi: 10.1177/0022034515624446.

  PMID: 26927486 RESULT

• Almutairi AS, Walid MA, Alkhodary MA. The effect of osseodensification and different thread designs on the dental implant primary stability. F1000Res. 2018 Dec 5;7:1898. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17292.1. eCollection 2018.

  PMID: 31131085 RESULT

• Oliveira PGFP, Bergamo ETP, Neiva R, Bonfante EA, Witek L, Tovar N, Coelho PG. Osseodensification outperforms conventional implant subtractive instrumentation: A study in sheep. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2018 Sep 1;90:300-307. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.04.051. Epub 2018 Apr 18. No abstract available.

  PMID: 29853095 RESULT

• Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Podaliri Vulpiani M. Validation of value of actual micromotion as a direct measure of implant micromobility after healing (secondary implant stability). An in vivo histologic and biomechanical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):1423-1430. doi: 10.1111/clr.12756. Epub 2016 Jan 4.

  PMID: 26727557 RESULT

• Falco A, Berardini M, Trisi P. Correlation Between Implant Geometry, Implant Surface, Insertion Torque, and Primary Stability: In Vitro Biomechanical Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Jul/Aug;33(4):824-830. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6285.

  PMID: 30024998 RESULT

• Slete FB, Olin P, Prasad H. Histomorphometric Comparison of 3 Osteotomy Techniques. Implant Dent. 2018 Aug;27(4):424-428. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000767.

  PMID: 29762184 RESULT

• Cappare P, Vinci R, Di Stefano DA, Traini T, Pantaleo G, Gherlone EF, Gastaldi G. Correlation between Initial BIC and the Insertion Torque/Depth Integral Recorded with an Instantaneous Torque-Measuring Implant Motor: An in vivo Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e613-20. doi: 10.1111/cid.12294. Epub 2015 Apr 15.

  PMID: 25876078 RESULT

• Alghamdi H, Anand PS, Anil S. Undersized implant site preparation to enhance primary implant stability in poor bone density: a prospective clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Dec;69(12):e506-12. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.007.

  PMID: 22117707 RESULT

• Markovic A, Calvo-Guirado JL, Lazic Z, Gomez-Moreno G, Calasan D, Guardia J, Colic S, Aguilar-Salvatierra A, Gacic B, Delgado-Ruiz R, Janjic B, Misic T. Evaluation of primary stability of self-tapping and non-self-tapping dental implants. A 12-week clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Jun;15(3):341-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00415.x. Epub 2011 Dec 15.

  PMID: 22171668 RESULT

Study Officials

• PRIYANKA ACHARYA, mds

  Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• prabhuji mlv, mds

  Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

  STUDY DIRECTOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor

Model Details: wo groups were made one test and control. The control group were treated with conventional implant site preparation technique and the test group were treated with osseodensification technique.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: December 2, 2019
• First Posted: December 6, 2019
• Study Start: November 30, 2017
• Primary Completion: October 15, 2019
• Study Completion: October 30, 2019
• Last Updated: December 6, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-12

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

IN (1)