Comparison of Two Dental Implant Types and Placement Depths on Bone Around the Implant in Adults Missing Back Teeth
Marginal Bone Remodeling and Peri-Implant Inflammatory Biomarkers Around Crestally Placed Tissue-Level and Subcrestally Placed Bone-Level Implants: A Prospective Randomized Study
1 other identifier
interventional
30
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The goal of this clinical trial was to compare two ways of placing and restoring dental implants in adults missing one or more back teeth. The main question it aimed to answer was: does a bone-level implant placed 2 mm below the bone crest, with a final abutment that is never removed, preserve more of the bone around the implant than a tissue-level implant placed at the level of the bone crest? Each implant was randomly assigned by coin toss to one of the two treatments. Researchers measured the bone level around the implants on dental X-rays at crown placement, 6 months after loading, and at a final visit 12 to 24 months after loading. They also measured two markers of inflammation (IL-1β and MMP-8) in the fluid around the implants 6 months after loading.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at below P25 for not_applicable
Started May 2022
Typical duration for not_applicable
1 active site
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
May 2, 2022
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
November 6, 2024
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
November 6, 2024
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
October 14, 2026
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
October 21, 2026
CompletedOctober 21, 2026
October 1, 2026
2.5 years
October 14, 2026
October 14, 2026
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Change From Baseline in Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Level at Final Follow-up
Vertical distance (mm) from the bone crest to the first implant thread, measured at the mesial and distal sites on standardized periapical radiographs (long-cone paralleling technique) with calibrated ImageJ software by two blinded examiners. Change is calculated as the baseline value minus the follow-up value; positive values indicate bone loss.
Baseline (prosthesis delivery), 6 months after loading, and final follow-up (12 to 24 months after loading)
Secondary Outcomes (2)
Interleukin-1β Concentration in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid
12 months after loading
Matrix Metalloproteinase-8 Concentration in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid
12 months after loading
Study Arms (2)
Tissue-level implant, crestal placement
ACTIVE COMPARATORKlockner Essential Cone tissue-level implants (1.5 mm machined transmucosal collar, conical connection) placed with the treated surface at the crestal level and restored with monolithic zirconia single crowns.
Bone-level implant, 2 mm subcrestal placement
EXPERIMENTALKlockner Vega bone-level implants (internal hexagon with 10° conical interface and platform switching) placed 2 mm subcrestally. A definitive 2 mm transepithelial abutment was connected 2 months after surgery and was never removed (one-abutment-one-time protocol). Restored with monolithic zirconia single crowns.
Interventions
Tissue-level dental implant with a 1.5 mm machined transmucosal collar and conical connection, placed with the treated surface at the level of the bone crest after flap elevation.
Bone-level dental implant with an internal hexagonal connection, 10° conical interface and platform switching, placed 2 mm below the bone crest. A definitive 2 mm transepithelial abutment was connected 2 months after surgery and never removed.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Adults in good general health
- Missing one or more back teeth that can be replaced with a dental implant
- Healthy gums, with no active gum disease
- Good oral hygiene (plaque and gum bleeding scores below 20%)
- Enough jawbone to place an implant at least 4 mm wide and 8 mm long, with at least 1.5 mm of bone around the implant, as confirmed by a 3D dental scan (CBCT)
You may not qualify if:
- Smoking
- Uncontrolled diabetes
- Treatment with intravenous bisphosphonates (bone-strengthening drugs given by injection)
- Weakened immune system or treatment with immunosuppressive drugs
- Active cancer
- Previous radiotherapy to the head or neck
- Pregnancy
- Untreated gum disease (periodontitis)
- Insufficient jawbone quality or quantity
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Clinica Dental MD
Bilbao, Bizkaia, 48012, Spain
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Masking Details
- The two radiographic outcome assessors and the laboratory staff who performed the ELISA analyses were blinded to group allocation. The surgeon was aware of the allocation, as the implant type was assigned at the surgical planning stage, and blinding of the care provider was not possible because the implants differ visibly in design and placement depth.
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- DDS, PhD; Collaborating Professor, Master's Degree in Prostodhontics, Oral Implantology and Periodontology, Universidad Europea Miguel de Cervantes
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
October 14, 2026
First Posted
October 21, 2026
Study Start
May 2, 2022
Primary Completion
November 6, 2024
Study Completion
November 6, 2024
Last Updated
October 21, 2026
Record last verified: 2026-10