FindTrial
Sign In

A Simple Comparison of Traditional Drilling and a New Bone-Saving Technique for Dental Implants

Clinical Evaluation of Conventional versus Osseodensification Drilling in Implant Placement - NIL

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2026/01/101271
Enrollment
20
Registered
2026-01-15
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2026-02-02

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K069- Disorder of gingiva and edentulousalveolar ridge, unspecified

Interventions

Intervention1: Conventional implant drills: Conventional implant drilling involves using standard drills in a clockwise direction to create osteotomy for implant placement. This method removes bone ti

Sponsors

Individual Ayush Chettri
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients who are willing to comply with all the study related procedures after signing an informed consent form. Both males and females patients will be taken. Non-contributing medical history. Good oral hygiene. Edentulous area requiring implant placement.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Systemic diseases Taking medication that effect bone formation. Oral mucosal lesions. History of radiation therapy. Alcoholics, smokers. Severe bruxism Poor oral hygiene Pregnancy

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
assess primary stability and potentially increase bone density around the implant site prepared using osseodensification drillsTimepoint: 1 year—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
enhanced secondary stability and improved bone to implant contactTimepoint: 1 year—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactMukesh Kumar

Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Poanta Sahib,Himachal Pradesh.

drmks78@gmail.com09318903280

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 7, 2026