Skip to content

Efficacy of Implant Surface Characteristics in Patients With History of Periodontitis

Efficacy of Two Dental Implants With Different Surface Characteristics in Patients With History of Periodontitis. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05010382
Enrollment
40
Registered
2021-08-18
Start date
2018-03-13
Completion date
2021-07-25
Last updated
2021-08-18

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

Conditions

Marginal Bone Loss

Keywords

Implant surface, hybrid, Peri-implantitis, Periodontitis, Marginal bone loss

Brief summary

The aim of the study is to evaluate in patients with history of periodontitis the clinical, microbiological and radiological outcomes of implants with a modified implant design consisting on a machined surface in the coronal third of the implant. In this 12-month, parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial, patients with history of treated periodontitis and in need of dental implants for single-unit or short edentulous spaces (i.e. two implants) will be randomly assigned to a test group (implants with a hybrid surface, presenting a machined coronal third; HS) or a control group (conventional moderately rough implants; RS). Implants will be restored 3 months later with fixed implant supported reconstructions. Radiological, clinical, microbiological and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) will be assessed 3, 6 and 12 months after the prosthetic installation.

Interventions

Under local anaesthesia, full-thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were elevated, the alveolar ridge measured, and a proper implant dimension (3.75 mm and 4.25 mm diameter; 8 mm, 10 mm and 11.5 mm length) and position selected. After site preparation, each patient was randomly allocated to the test or the control group. Patients in the test group received a modified implant design with the coronal third presenting a machined surface (hybrid surface (HS) group), while in the control group the same implant design with a titanium rough surface up to the implant shoulder was used (rough surface (RS) group). Implants were placed 1 mm sub-crestally. In the case of dehiscence or fenestrations around the implant, the patient was excluded from the study. Once inserted, healing abutments (ranging between 3 -5 mm) were placed, and flaps sutured around the abutments to allow for a transmucosal healing.

Sponsors

Ti Care S.L
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Intervention model description

Patients will recieve an implant with either hybrid surface (test group) or moderately rough surface (control implants

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

•\> 20 years of age * Presence of ≥1 adjacent missing teeth, in either maxilla or mandible (up to three missing units). * A natural tooth had to be present mesially to the most proximal implant site, although free end situations were allowed, and opposing dentition had to be natural teeth or implant supported fixed restorations. * History of treated and controlled periodontitis. * Presence of adequate bone volume to achieve primary implant stability without concomitant regeneration

Exclusion criteria

* Diseases affecting bone metabolism or wound healing (e.g.) * History of radiation therapy, leukocyte dysfunction, or any other immunodeficiency * Drug abuse * Intrasurgical

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Radiographic marginal bone levels ChangeChange between baseline and 12 monthsRadiographic marginal bone levels (bone loss) are defined as the distance between the bone crest and the implant shoulder at mesial and distal sites. For standardization of periapical radiographs the same film holder-beam aiming device will be applied (Rinn System) and silicone custom-made bite blocks will be used to improve reproducible repositioning. All digital radiographs will be evaluated by one calibrated and trained researcher (BS) using a software (AutoCAD® Autodesk ®, California, USA) that allows to calibrate the distances using the known implant length.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Clinical periodontal outcome measurements changeChange between baseline and 12 monthsClinical measurements will be performed at six sites per implant of i) probing depth (PD), ii) marginal mucosa recession assessed as length of the implant crown (CLI; distance from the mucosal margin to the oclusal surface at the mid buccal point), iii) bleeding on probing (BoP) and iv) plaque scores (PI). Finally, peri-implant mucositis, defined as the presence of profuse BoP.
Microbiologic outcome measurements changeChange between baseline and 12 monthsPaper points will be inserted to the depth of the peri-implant pocket and kept in place for 15 sec. The points will be transferred into a screw-capped vial, containing 1.5 ml of reduced transport fluid, (RTF) and maintained at -20ºC. Microbiological analysis by means of anaerobic culture will be performed for the determination of counts, proportion and frequency of detection of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum.�
Patient reported outcome measures (PROM's)changeChange between baseline and 12 monthsPROM´s will be assessed by means of a questionnaire comprising 4 items: comfort, appearance, masticatory function and overall satisfaction. Patients will be asked to rate these four aspects according to the following scale: very unsatisfied, unsatisfied, fair, satisfied and very satisfied.

Countries

Spain

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 13, 2026