Comparing the Secondary Stability of Dental Implants: Immediate Gradual Loading Versus Early Loading Protocol in Posterior Maxilla

Split Mouth Clinical Study to Compare the Secondary Stability of Dental Implants Using Immediate Gradual Loading Versus Early Loading Protocol in Posterior Maxilla. A Randomized Controlled Trial

Status

UNKNOWN

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT02309125

Enrollment

Registered

2014-12-05

Start date

2014-12-31

Completion date

2015-04-30

Last updated

2014-12-05

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

Conditions

Bone Loss, Dental Implant, Transmucosal Healing

Keywords

immediate gradual loading

Brief summary

The aim of this split mouth study is to compare which method is better in reducing bone loss and healing times following implants. Specifically, the two methods investigated will be immediate gradual loading and early loading protocol. Research Hypothesis Immediate gradual loading using gingival formers is superior to early loading protocols in improving bone quality and thus reducing the healing time.

Detailed description

These two methods (gradual loading and early loading) will both be used in implants patients with the aim to compare which protocol leads to a better outcome for the patient. A 'better outcome' is defined as the method, which leads to the least crestal bone loss, and the fastest healing time. Immediate gradually loaded side: will include transmucosal healing of dental implants using gingival formers which will be replaced every 2 weeks by consequent larger size gingival former.i.e. at surgery time the implants will receive 2 mm height gingival former which will be swapped by 3 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm and the last is 6 mm early loaded side: implants will be submerged from the surgery time till loading time (2 month).

Interventions

PROCEDUREimmediate progressive loading using gingival formers

Implant placement will be 1 mm subcrestally, and it will receive transmucosal healing using gingival former. The gingival former will be replaced every 2 weeks by consequent larger size gingival former (at surgery time group A will receive 2 mm height gingival former which will be swapped by,3 mm, 4 mm and the last is 5 mm).

PROCEDUREsubmerged healing

the implant placement will be 1 mm subcrestally, and it will receive unloaded healing.(submerged healing)

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary purpose

SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Masking

SINGLE (Caregiver)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

25 Years to 55 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. Patients with bilateral Partial or complete edentulous areas in maxillary premolar/molar region. 2. Free medical history. 3. Enough bone quantity. 4. Enough keratinized mucosa

Exclusion criteria

1. Systemic disease. 2. Irradiated bone (radiotherapy). 3. Heavy smoking habit. 4. Patients undergoing long-term immunosuppressive therapy. 5. Atrophic ridges. 6. Presence of any local bony lesion. 7. Presence of mandibular parafunctional habits

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
secondary stability of dental implant (ISQ Osstell Mentol)	2 month	ISQ Osstell Mentol

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Bone loss using Periapical Radiographic (Long Cone Paralleling technique)	2 month	using Periapical Radiographic (Long Cone Paralleling technique)

Countries

Egypt

Contacts

Primary Contactelhassan mossad, oral surgeon

mossadelhassan@yahoo.com+201111113770

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026