Implant Complication
Conditions
Keywords
implants
Brief summary
dental implants are usually placed by sequential set of drills which could increase the time of the surgery and could raise the temperature of the osteotomy preparation so a new drill was designed to place the implants fast and easy way
Detailed description
Dental implant success is evident nowadays with the predictable functional and aesthetic results obtained . Simplified techniques and approaches are preferred for the convenience of both the patients and operators . Current research is focusing on decreasing the number of instruments used, shortening of the operation time and performing flapless approaches for implant placement whenever possible. This is done to reduce the postoperative complaints, such as pain, swelling and bleeding; thus decreasing the need for analgesics and minimising the occurrence of morbidity .
Interventions
OTHERdrill
single 3.25 mm stainless steel drill
Sponsors
Assiut University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* The inclusion criteria : * implant recipient sites free from any pathological conditions. * Patients who were cooperative, motivated and hygiene conscious were selected. * non smoker patients *
Exclusion criteria
: * Patients unable to undergo minor oral surgical procedures * patients with a history of drug abuse or catabolic drugs were not included. * Patients with a history of psychiatric disorder and those with unrealistic expectations about the aesthetic outcome of implant therapy were also excluded. * Patients with insufficient vertical inter-arch space, on centric occlusion, to accommodate the available restorative components . * Uncontrolled diabetic patients * Patient who had any systemic condition that may contraindicate implant therapy (impaired wound healing - bleeding disorders * patients who had any habits that might jeopardise the osseointegration process, such as heavy smoking and alcoholism. * Patients with para-functional habits that produce overload on the implant, such as bruxism and clenching were excluded.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| osseointegration of the dental implants | 6 months | healing and union of the dental implants with the surrounding bone measured by torque wrench exceeds 30 N/CM |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mobility | 6 months | the fixation of the implants checked by perio test M (-8- 0) INDICATES nonmobile |
| bone loss | 6 months , 1 ,2 and 3 years after function | by periapical xray the bone loss measured from the platform of the implant if present unit of measurement : mm |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed