NCT07087717

Brief Summary

This study looks at how the surface texture of dental implants affects the surrounding bone and the overall gum health over time. It compares two types of implant surfaces: one partially smooth and one slightly rough. The researchers also check how these implant treatments impact patients' quality of life related to oral health after 1 year and again after 8 years.

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 not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Jan 2015

Longer than P75 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

January 12, 2015

Completed
9.9 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

December 12, 2024

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

December 12, 2024

Completed
7 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

June 26, 2025

Completed
1 month until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

July 28, 2025

Completed
Last Updated

July 28, 2025

Status Verified

July 1, 2025

Enrollment Period

9.9 years

First QC Date

June 26, 2025

Last Update Submit

July 18, 2025

Conditions

Keywords

implant surfaceimplant-supported overdentureoral health quality of lifeimplant survivalhybrid implantsmoderately rough implants

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • The effect of surface roughness on long-term crestal bone remodelling.

    The effect of surface roughness on long-term crestal bone remodelling is evaluated by recording crestal bone loss (mm) on intra-oral periapical radiographs of the implants.

    From enrollment until 8 years.

Secondary Outcomes (4)

  • Oral Health Quality of Life (OHQoL)

    Assessed after 1 and 8 function years.

  • Peri-implant Health: Probing pocket depth

    At one year, 6 years, 8 years and 10 years of follow-up

  • Peri-implant health: Bleeding on probing

    At one year, 6 years, 8 years and 10 years of follow-up.

  • Peri-implant Health: Plaque

    at one year, 6 years, 8 years and 10 years of follow-up.

Study Arms (2)

DCC-implant

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Implant with a moderatley rough surface (DCC) was placed in one part of the mandible.

Device: Split-Mouth Placement of an implant with a moderately rough surface (DCC).

MSC-implant

EXPERIMENTAL

Implant with a a hybrid surface (MSC) was placed in a second part of the mandible.

Device: Split-Mouth Placement of an implant with a hybrid surface (MSC).

Interventions

Surgical placement of a dental implant in canine area (left or right, assigned by flipping a coin) of the mandibular bone of the patient.

DCC-implant

Surgical placement of a dental implant in canine area (left or right, assigned by flipping a coin) of the mandibular bone of the patient.

MSC-implant

Eligibility Criteria

Age21 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Totally edentulous for at least four months
  • Sufficient residual bone volume to place two implants of 4 mm in diameter and 9-11 mm in length

You may not qualify if:

  • \<21 years old
  • Smoking
  • General contra-indications for oral surgery, e.g., full-dose head and neck radiation, intravenously administrated bisphosphonates and current chemotherapy.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Oral Health Sciences - Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology - P8

Ghent, 900, Belgium

Location

Related Publications (1)

  • Glibert M, Matthys C, Maat RJ, De Bruyn H, Vervaeke S. A randomized controlled clinical trial assessing initial crestal bone remodeling of implants with a different surface roughness. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Oct;20(5):824-828. doi: 10.1111/cid.12652. Epub 2018 Jul 26.

    PMID: 30048048BACKGROUND

Study Officials

  • Maarten Glibert, DDS, MSc, PhD

    University Ghent

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
SINGLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: In this split-mouth randomized controlled trial patients received a mandibular overdenture supported by 2 different implants. One implant had a moderately rough surface (DCC) and one implant had a hybrid surface (MSC).
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

June 26, 2025

First Posted

July 28, 2025

Study Start

January 12, 2015

Primary Completion

December 12, 2024

Study Completion

December 12, 2024

Last Updated

July 28, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-07

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations