NCT05190614

Brief Summary

To evaluate a star-shaped incision technique to thick-gingiva and thingingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis. The star-shaped incision would be an effective and simple method to reconstruct gingival papillae and avoid the gingival recession in thick-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis, and it is worthy of clinical extend.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

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

Enrollment
24

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for all trials

Timeline
Completed

Started Jun 2019

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

June 1, 2019

Completed
2 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

June 1, 2021

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

June 1, 2021

Completed
7 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

December 14, 2021

Completed
1 month until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

January 13, 2022

Completed
Last Updated

January 13, 2022

Status Verified

December 1, 2021

Enrollment Period

2 years

First QC Date

December 14, 2021

Last Update Submit

December 30, 2021

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (6)

  • Papilla height

    Presence/absence of papilla height was assessed visually according to the papilla index proposed by Jemt

    Between June 2019 and June 2021

  • Modified Plaque Index (mPI)

    plaque accumulation around the marginal peri-implant tissue was assessed by the criteria of mPI

    Between June 2019 and June 2021

  • Modified Sulcus Bleeding Index (mBI)

    the bleeding tendency of the marginal peri-implant tissue was evaluated using mBI

    Between June 2019 and June 2021

  • Probing Depth (PD, mm)

    PD was assessed at the mid-buccal, mid-oral, mesial and distal aspects of the buccal surfaces of each implant with a standard periodontal probe, and final value was determined by the average of four aspects.

    Between June 2019 and June 2021

  • Gingival margin level (GML)

    gingival margin level was assessed by calculating the vertical distance between the most apical point of gingival margin at the buccal aspect of the crown and line connecting the peak of the adjacent mesial and distal natural teeth (PMD)

    Between June 2019 and June 2021

  • The landmarks of first bone-implant contact (fBIC) and implant shoulder (IS)

    fBIC-IS was defined as the vertical distance the first bone-implant contact to implant shoulder, and the distance was assessed at the mesial and distal aspect of implant, respectively. When the marginal crestal bone was located coronal to the IS, a positive (+) value was given, where a negative (-) value when located apically to the IS, the value was deemed as zero when IS and fBIC coincided. The crestal bone level at the time of impression taking was regarded as baseline. The known implant length was used for the calibration of dimensional distortion in the radiograph (the length of implant was 10 mm).

    Between June 2019 and June 2021

Study Arms (2)

thick-gingiva group

After the insertion of the probe into the facial aspect of the sulcus through the gingival margin, the simple visual method is based on the transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin while probing the buccal sulcus at the midfacial aspect of the tooth. When the outline of the underlying periodontal probe can't be seen through the gingival, the gingival phenotype is considered thick.

thin-gingiva group

After the insertion of the probe into the facial aspect of the sulcus through the gingival margin, the simple visual method is based on the transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin while probing the buccal sulcus at the midfacial aspect of the tooth. When the outline of the underlying periodontal probe can be seen through the gingival, the gingival phenotype is considered thin.

Diagnostic Test: The biotype of gingiva

Interventions

The biotype of gingivaDIAGNOSTIC_TEST

The biotype of gingival was determined by periodontal probe.

thin-gingiva group

Eligibility Criteria

Age22 Years - 58 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64)
Sampling MethodProbability Sample
Study Population

The study samples were comprised of patients who had been treated with one bone-level implant (Osstem, Korea) insertion in the premolar or molar region. Twenty-four subjects were selected from the patients who came to the Department of Oral Implantology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University in China between June 2019 and June 2021.

You may qualify if:

  • Good general health, no chronic systemic diseases.
  • All subjects included in this study needed to have one missing premolar or molar teeth with adjacent natural teeth.
  • All subjects included in this study had been treated with one bone-level implant insertion in the premolar or molar region. The patients had insufficient gingival papilla height (referred to contralateral natural tooth which also had insufficient gingival papilla height) and at least 2 mm of keratinized tissue width around the implant.

You may not qualify if:

  • Active periodontal infections.
  • Heavy smoking (\> 10 cigarettes per day).

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

West China Hospital of Stomatology

Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China

Location

Related Publications (2)

  • 1. Du H, Gao M, Qi C, Liu S, Lin Y. Drug-induced gingival hyperplasia and scaffolds: they may be valuable for horizontal food impaction. Med Hypotheses 2010;74(6): 984-5. 2. Bidra AS. Nonsurgical management of inflammatory periimplant disease caused by food impaction: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111(2): 96-100. 3. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Mainello CP, Lijenberg B. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991; 2: 81-90. 4. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Jonsson K, Ericsson I. The topography of the vascular systems in the periodontal and peri-implant tissues in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 1994; 21: 189-93. 5. Chow YC, Wang HL. Factors and techniques influencing peri-implant papillae. Implant Dent 2010; 19(3): 208-19. 6. Sanavi F, Weisgold AS, Rose LF. Biologic width and its relation to periodontal biotypes. J Esthet Dent 1998; 10(3): 157-63. 7. De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36(5): 428-33. 8. Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol 1991; 18(1): 78-82. 9. Pontoriero R, Carnevale G. Surgical crown lengthening: a 12-month clinical wound healing study. J Periodontol 2001;72(7): 841-8. 10. Ronay V, Sahrmann P, Bindl A, Attin T, Schmidlin PR. Current status and perspectives of mucogingival soft tissue measurement methods. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23(3):146-56. 11. Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch E Jr, Land NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1987; 2(4):145-51. 12. Chang M, Wenstrom JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999; 10(3): 185-94. 13. Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(7): 635-41. 14. Kajiwara N, Masaki C, Mukaibo T, Kondo Y, Nakamoto T, Hosokawa R. Soft tissue biological response to zirconia and metal implant abutments compared with natural tooth: microcirculation monitoring as a novel bioindicator. Implant Dent 2015; 24(1): 37-41. 15. Muller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, Eger T. Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol 2000; 27(9):621-6. 16. Pradeep AR, Karthikeyan BV. Peri-implant papilla reconstruction: realities and limitations. J Periodontol, 2006. 77(3): p. 534-44. 17. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Umezu K, Kois JC. Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa: an evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J Periodontol 2003;74(4):557-62. 18. Finelle G, Papadimitriou DE, Souza AB, Katebi N, Gallucci GO, Araujo MG. Peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone adaptation on implant with non-matching healing abutments: micro-CT analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015; 26(4): e42-6. 19. Farronato D, Santoro G, Canullo L, Botticelli D, Maiorana C, Lang NP. Establishment of the epithelial attachment and connective tissue adaptation to implants installed under the concept of

    BACKGROUND
  • Luo W, Kuang H, Sun H, Huang Y, Wang J, Zheng K, Li Z, Qu Y, Man Y, Wu Y. Star-shaped incision technique for gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Jul 7;102(27):e34324. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034324.

Study Officials

  • Xiaohui Zheng, MD

    West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, China

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
observational
Observational Model
COHORT
Time Perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Associate Professor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

December 14, 2021

First Posted

January 13, 2022

Study Start

June 1, 2019

Primary Completion

June 1, 2021

Study Completion

June 1, 2021

Last Updated

January 13, 2022

Record last verified: 2021-12

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations