Skip to content

A study to compare bone density and implant stability using two different implant drilling methods in the posterior region of the jaw

Comparison of bone density and implant stability between osseodensification and conventional drilling technique â?? A split mouth randomised Controlled Trial.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2023/01/049279
Enrollment
11
Registered
2023-01-30
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-02-06

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K084- Partial loss of teeth

Interventions

Intervention1: Implant driling done using Osseodensification technique.: Implant placement will be done in the osteotomy site prepared sequentially using osseodensification burs and bone density will

Sponsors

A R Sanofar
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Adequate bone height and width after extraction to accommodate the implant without impinging on vital structures in either maxillary or mandibular arches. 2. Bone density range between =150 measured in Hounsefield units based on CBCT findings (corresponding to D3 -D4 bone density according to bone density classification by Misch). 3. Medically fit participants of age range between 24 â?? 50 years. 4. Willingness to participate for the duration of the study. 5. General good health 6. Patient who will give positive informed consent. 7. Both the edentulous areas having antagonist teeth.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. High bone density (more than 850 HU corresponding to D1and D2 level of bone density classification by Misch), 2. Bone metabolic disorders such as osteoporosis, osteomalacia, rickets affecting surrounding bone health. 3. History of radiotherapy in head and neck region. 4. Current habit of smoking or alcohol or drug abuse. 5. Systemic conditions as uncontrolled diabetic and hypertensive patients and cardiovascular conditions affecting the integrity of implant or connective tissue health surrounding the implant. 6. Bleeding dyscrasias or under anticoagulant therapy. 7. Needed augmentation of the implant site. 8. Signs of infection in the prospective implant site. 9. History of participants undertaking systemic corticosteroids, bisphosphonates or any other medications that would compromise postoperative healing or osseointegration. 10. Pregnancy / lactating mothers at the time of enrollment. 11. Parafunctional habits such as bruxism and clenching, 12. Local limitations such as inadequate inter-ridge distance 13. Poor oral hygiene and motivation 14. Untreated generalized periodontitis. 15. Full mouth plaque and the bleeding score of 15 % or less.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Comparison of bone density between osseodensification and conventional drilling techniqueTimepoint: Preoperative , Postoperative (Immediately after implant placement) and in a period of 12 weeks

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Comparison of Implant stability between osseodensification and conventional drilling techniqueTimepoint: Postoperatively , 6 and 12 weeks after implant placement

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactA R Sanofar

AIIMS , New Delhi

dr.dheerajkoli@gmail.com9958661988

Outcome results

None listed

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