Clinical Research Directory

Comparative Clinical Study of Implant Stability and Peri-implant Bone Loss in Two Implant Designs

This clinical study was conducted to evaluate the effect of different dental implant designs on implant stability and peri-implant bone levels during the early healing phase. Dental implants are widely used for the replacement of missing teeth, and their long-term success depends on achieving adequate primary stability and maintaining the surrounding bone. Variations in implant design, including thread configuration and body geometry, may influence the mechanical and biological behavior of implants, thereby affecting treatment outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare two different implant designs: double-threaded straight-body implants and triple-threaded conical-body implants. A total of 30 patients requiring implant-supported restorations in the posterior mandibular region were included in the study. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups, with each group receiving one type of implant design. Implant stability was assessed using resonance frequency analysis (RFA), which provides implant stability quotient (ISQ) values as an objective measure of stability. In addition, peri-implant marginal bone levels were evaluated using standardized intraoral radiographs. These measurements were recorded at three time points: at the time of implant placement (baseline), at 3 months, and at 6 months after placement. The primary objective of the study was to determine whether implant design influences implant stability over time. The secondary objective was to evaluate and compare marginal bone loss around the implants between the two groups during the early healing period. The main research question addressed in this study was: Does the difference in implant thread design and body geometry significantly affect implant stability and peri-implant marginal bone loss during the early healing phase? It was hypothesized that implants with a conical body design and multiple thread configuration may provide higher stability due to improved bone engagement and load distribution, while maintaining comparable bone levels around the implant. The findings of this study are expected to provide clinically relevant evidence regarding the influence of implant macro-design on treatment outcomes. This may assist dental practitioners in selecting appropriate implant systems to enhance primary stability, promote successful osseointegration, and improve long-term prognosis in implant therapy.

Evaluation of Two Mini-implant Diameters in the Infra-zygomatic Crest Region.

The goal of this clinical trials is to compare two diameters, 1.6 and 2 mm, of mini implants both are 12 mm length placed in the infrazygomatic crest region. The main questions it aims to answer are: which diameter is more suitable for IZC region 1.6 or 2mm in terms of primary stability, secondary stability, pain perception and failure rate. 20 participant will receive 40 mini implant bilaterally (20 in one side of 1.6mm, the other side 20 of 2mm). participants will be asked to record visual analog scale (VAS) for 3 nights monitored monthly by the investigator.

Analysising the Marginal Bone Loss, Torque and Implant Stability Placed in Bone and Tissue Level Dental Implants

It is a prospective clinical study to compare two implants of the same brand of a similar design for implantation \[either at the bone tissue level or at the soft tissue level\], in order to evaluate the marginal bone loss of each dental implant in mm. 96 patients will be analyzed (an expected N of 48 per group, hoping to reach 100 implants per arm).

Clinical Evaluation of Biological Drilling Osteotomy Protocol Versus Conventional Drilling Osteotomy Protocol

This study aims to evaluate the effect of biological drilling osteotomy protocol compared to conventional osteotomy protocol in delayed implant placement in the posterior mandible regarding implant stability Type of study design: Randomized Clinical Trial In patient indicated for delayed implant placement in the lower posterior mandible will the use of biological drilling protocol osteotomy compared to conventional drilling protocol osteotomy differ regarding implant stability at three months?

ISQ Differences Between Different Implants in Post-extraction Sockets

Two different implants will be used in post-extraction sockets and ISQ will be recorded monthly from insertion moment to 12 months of follow up to understand if ISQ can be affected by implant macro design

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Implant Stability in Healed Maxillary Posterior Sites Comparing Osteotome, Osseodensification and Conventional Drilling Implant Placement Techniques

This study aims to compare the implant stability values following implant placement via Osteotomes and via Osseodensification using Densah Burs versus implant placement using conventional drilling technique in patients with upper posterior partially edentulous ridges as well as evaluating the crestal bone loss around temporary restorations following the three compared drilling techniques.

Effect of L-PRF on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Levels.

Osseointegration refers to the formation of a structure and functional bone-to-bone interface, without the interposition of soft tissue. Successful osseointegration is imperative to implant success and relies on a number of factors including implant design, material, surface and finish the bone status, surgical technique and implant loading conditions. Primary implant stability is the bio-mechanical stability achieved for implants at the time of placement and is achieved through micromovements of the implant. Following healing of the osteotomy site and formation of new bone a biological fixation of the implant to bone results and is referred to as secondary implant stability. Such as with osseointegration, there are several factors that affect primary implant stability including insertion torque, implant design, density of bone and surgical technique. To achieve future implant osseointegration, primary stability must first be accomplished. Leukocyte and platelet rich fibrin (L-PRF) is formed by centrifuging venous blood using an IntraSpin® machine (U.S Food and Drug Administration approved and CE marked for in-vivo use) at 2700 revolutions per minute for 12 minutes. Following removal from the L-PRF tubes the fibrin clot is separated from the red blood cell clot. The fibrin clot is then transferred to the PRF box and the Xpression™ tray is placed over the fibrin clot and after 5 minutes the L-PRF membrane is ready for use. During the traditional implant placement there is an osteotomy cut in practical terms is a controlled fracture of the bone resulting in rupture of local blood vessels which almost immediately sparks a cascade of healing including hemostasis, inflammation and proliferation of cells and tissue maturation. Our study will include Leukocyte platelet rich fibrin surrounding the implant at the osteotomy site which is a robust fibrin mesh which provides a progressive release of growth factors improving angiogenesis, osteoblastic proliferation, and cell differentiation. L-PRF utilization during implant placement attempts to expedite the process by delivering growth factors to the surface of the implant and surrounding bone promoting the healing process. Experimental research has shown that delivery of molecules or growth factors to an implants surface may increase osteoblast activity and improve functional integration of the implant. Pre-clinical tests have shown that the utilization of platelet growth factors improve wound healing, proliferation of cells and implant osseointegration in animal models. Further pre-clinical studies have shown that L-PRF increased the rate and amount of new bone formation in rabbits. Limited human tests in small populations not including the mandible have shown positive outcomes with improvement in implant stability when L-PRF was utilized during implant placement. High quality clinical evidence on this topic is limited and must be improved to allow clinicians to make evidence-based decisions on L-PRF utilization. The proposed study will be a randomized control trial comparing the use of L-PRF in implant placement versus conventional implant placement. Considering the extra step of phlebotomy and time for centrifuging of the blood samples the literature must show a clinical benefit if this technique is to be utilized into the future. This study aims to add to available clinical evidence and address some of the limitations in current evidence to aid clinicians to make evidence-based decisions on whether to utilize LPRF to improve implant stability and hence earlier loading of implants.