Clinical Research Directory

Evaluation of Zygomatic Implant Placement Accuracy Using Fully Metallic vs Resin-based Static Surgical Guides in Severely Atrophic Maxilla

Some patients lose a large amount of bone in the upper jaw. When this happens, it can be difficult to place regular dental implants. In these cases, special implants called zygomatic implants can be used. These implants are longer than normal implants and are fixed in the cheekbone, which usually has enough bone to support them. They can help support fixed teeth for patients with severe bone loss in the upper jaw. Placing zygomatic implants requires careful planning and high accuracy. To help guide the surgeon during the operation, a surgical guide can be used. A surgical guide is a custom-made device that helps the surgeon place the implant in the planned position. Surgical guides can be made from different materials. The most common type is made from resin (a strong plastic material) using 3D printing. Recently, fully metallic surgical guides have been developed. These metal guides may be stronger and more stable during surgery, but it is not yet clear if they improve the accuracy of implant placement. The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of metal surgical guides and resin surgical guides when placing zygomatic implants in patients with severe bone loss in the upper jaw. Patients included in the study will undergo a clinical examination and a CT scan before surgery to plan the implant positions. During the surgery, each patient will receive zygomatic implants on both sides of the upper jaw. On one side, the implants will be placed using a metal surgical guide, and on the other side, they will be placed using a resin surgical guide. This allows the two types of guides to be compared in the same patient. After the surgery, another CT scan will be taken to check the final position of the implants. The planned implant position will be compared with the actual position after surgery to measure the accuracy of placement. The results of this study will help determine whether metallic surgical guides or resin surgical guides provide better accuracy when placing zygomatic implants. Participation in this study is voluntary. All patients will receive full information about the study and will sign a consent form before participating.

Computer Guided Split Thickness Versus Full Thickness Flap Buccal Bone Lid Approach in Hard Mandibular Pathosis

* Full thickness Buccal bone lid approach is well known and well reported technique with a superiority on preserving bone volume and better bone healing especially when done using piezoelectrical devices when compared to conventional technique for management of mandibular pathosis, however periosteum disturbance have a negative role regarding vascularity and bone healing, by comparing the split thickness VS full thickness flap design with buccal bone lid approach, this study will highlight if the periosteum preserved attached to the lid improve the healing on mandibular bony pathosis. * Aim of the study: determine the effect of split thickness flap vs full thickness flap using a guided bone lid in hard mandibular pathosis in term of bone healing.

Atraumatic Zirconia Abutment Versus Customized Composite Healing Abutment in Maxilla or Mandible.

40 patients are included in the study, 20 patients in group 1 (=closure with composite material shaper; test group) and 20 patients in group 2 (=closure with custom-made zirconia oxide abutment; control group). Randomisation envelopes will be used for randomisation. Device under study: Straumann BLX, Roxolid® , SLActive® dental implants with a diameter of 3.5, 3.75, 4, 4.5 mm are used. Allogenic bone botiss maxgraft® cortical granules are used as graft material. Inclusion criteria: 1. Males and females at least 18 years of age or older. 2. One implant per patient. 3. Prior to any study-related activity, the subject must voluntarily sign informed consent, be willing and able to attend scheduled follow-up visits, and agree to the collection and analysis of pseudonymised data. 4. Lateral individual teeth (premolars and molars). 5. Class I extraction socket (intact buccal wall) or class II (1/3 of buccal wall). 6. The gingival contour of the tooth to be extracted - without recession. 7. Adjacent anterior teeth have no periodontal loss. 8. There are no implants in the adjacent teeth. 9. Non-traumatic tooth extraction, which results in intact walls of the socket. Exclusion criteria: 1. Deep occlusion (severe, class II). 2. The patient smokes a lot (more than 10 cigarettes per day). 3. Systemic disease (osteoporosis). 4. No initial stability has been achieved after the implant insertion procedure.