Comparing professional opinions and patient feedback on cone-shaped versus hexagon-shaped dental implant connections

Professional and patient reported outcome measures in conical vs internal hexagon implant-abutment connection: A randomized controlled trial - Nil

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 4

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2025/07/090704

Enrollment

Registered

2025-07-10

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-07-21

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

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Intervention1: Implants with conical abutment connection: Implants with conical abutment connection will be placed in maxilla or mandible.Professional outcome measures such as implant survival,crestal

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Individuals of both genders, aged 18 to 65 years Physically and mentally healthy individuals Individuals willing to participate in the study Single/Multiple missing teeth in the maxilla or mandible Periodontally healthy individuals with periodontal probing depth less than 3mm Individuals with good plaque control and demonstrating good compliance Individuals with a favourable and stable occlusal relationship

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Individuals with systemic illness, osteoporosis, bleeding disorders and similar conditions Pregnant and lactating women Individuals with a history of smoking or using smokeless tobacco Individuals with a history of drug or alcohol abuse Individuals with a history of allergy Individuals with an immunocompromised condition or debilitating disease Individuals who have undergone radiotherapy or chemotherapy for malignancy

Design outcomes

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
NilTimepoint: Nil	—

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Professional reported outcomes:Implant survival,Crestal bone level, Biologic complications,Prosthetic complications,Analysis of inflammatory markerS(if feasible) Patient reported outcomes:Comfort,Masticatory function,Speech,Esthetics,Overall satisfactionTimepoint: Professional outcome measures such as implant survival,prosthetic complications will be evaluated at 6 months after prosthesis delivery.Crestal bone level will be evaluated at the time of implant placement,4 months after implant placement and 6 months after prosthesis delivery.Biologic complications will be evaluated after implant placement and after prosthesis delivery.Patient reported outcome measures such as comfort,masticatory function,speech,esthetics and overall satisfaction will be evaluated after the delivery of prosthesis and at 6 months after delivery.	—

Measure

Time frame

Professional reported outcomes:Implant survival,Crestal bone level, Biologic complications,Prosthetic complications,Analysis of inflammatory markerS(if feasible) Patient reported outcomes:Comfort,Masticatory function,Speech,Esthetics,Overall satisfactionTimepoint: Professional outcome measures such as implant survival,prosthetic complications will be evaluated at 6 months after prosthesis delivery.Crestal bone level will be evaluated at the time of implant placement,4 months after implant placement and 6 months after prosthesis delivery.Biologic complications will be evaluated after implant placement and after prosthesis delivery.Patient reported outcome measures such as comfort,masticatory function,speech,esthetics and overall satisfaction will be evaluated after the delivery of prosthesis and at 6 months after delivery.

—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Koushika R

Faculty of Dental Sciences, Banaras Hindu University

drmonika97@gmail.com9335499117

Outcome results