Skip to content

Fixed artificial teeth (dentures) for the upper jaw using two different techniques - A comparative trial.

Zygomatic versus conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae: a pragmatic multicenter randomised clinical trial

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2012/03/002468
Enrollment
180
Registered
2012-03-02
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: null- Completely edentulous maxillae with severe bone loss

Interventions

Intervention1: Zygomatic Implant: Branemark System Zygoma Ti-Unite Implants RP from Nobel Biocare Gothenburg Sweden) having the following lengths: 30, 35, 40, 42.5, 45, 47.5, 50 and 52.5 mm Control In

Sponsors

Dr Gunaseelan Rajan
Lead Sponsor
Dr B Praveen
Collaborator

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients with fully edentulous and atrophic maxilla not having sufficient bone volumes for placing dental implants at all or when it is possible to place only 2 implants in the front area (minimal diameter 3.5 mm and length of 8 mm) as evaluated on TC scans. No more than 4 mm of bone height should be available subantrally.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: General contraindications to implant surgery such as Patient irradiated in the head and neck region with greater than 70 Gray. Immunosuppressed or immunocompromised patients. Patients who took or are taking amino-bisphosphonates intravenously. Patients with poor oral hygiene and motivation. Patients with untreated periodontitis. Uncontrolled diabetes. Pregnancy or lactation. Addiction to alcohol or drugs. Psychiatric problems. Lack of opposite occluding dentition or prosthesis. Restricted mouth opening of less than 3.5 cm inter-arch anteriorly. Patients with an acute or chronic infection or inflammation in the area intended for implant placement. Patient unable to commit to 15 year follow-up. Patients participating in other investigations if the present protocol cannot be properly adhered to. Patients referred only for implant placement.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Implant mobility assessed manually with the removed prosthesis and/or any infection dictating implant removal. Assessments will be done at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15 years of loading. Implants, if not rotating, will be considered as successful.Timepoint: Assessments will be done at 1,3,5,7,10 years of loading

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1.Marginal bone levels on intra-oral radiographs. 2. Oral Health Impact Profile OHIP-14 (quality of life) 3. Patientsâ?? number of days with total or partial impaired activity assessed at delivery of the provisional prosthesis. 4.Time to function 5.Number of sessions with the dentistTimepoint: 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15 years after loading.

Countries

Belgium, China, Germany, India, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom

Contacts

Public ContactDr Gunaseelan Rajan

Chennai Dental Research Foundation

gunaseelanrajan@gmail.com

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026