Evaluation of Implant Stability in Low Quality Bone Following the Use of Osseodensifiers Versus Ridge Expanders

Evaluation of the Stability of Implants Placed in Low Quality Bone Following the Use of Osseodensification Technique Versus Ridge Expanders: Randomized Clinical Trial

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT05330546

Enrollment

Registered

2022-04-15

Start date

2022-04-01

Completion date

2024-06-30

Last updated

2024-11-19

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

Conditions

Low Bone Density

Keywords

osseodensification, ridge expansion screw

Brief summary

the use of osseodensification technique compared to ridge expansion screws in low bone quality

Detailed description

using Densah burs in preparation of implant osteotomy compared to ridge expansion screws in low quality bone

Interventions

PROCEDUREDensah burs

using Densah burs to prepare implant osteotomy

PROCEDURERidge expansion screws

using Ridge expansion screws to prepare implant osteotomy

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

20 Years to 60 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

* • Single tooth missing in the maxillary region with D3 (350-850 HU) and D4 (150-350 HU) bone (Sultana et al., 2020). * A minimum of 4 mm residual buccolingual bone width at site of implant placement (Koutouzis et al., 2019). * The recipient site of the implant should be free from any pathological conditions. * No diagnosed bone disease or medication known to affect bone metabolism. * Patients who are cooperative, motivated and hygiene conscious. * Patients having adequate inter-occlusal space of 8-10 mm (Fernández et al., 2017)

Exclusion criteria

* Systemic conditions/diseases that contraindicate surgery (Jarikian et al., 2021). * Patients who have any habits that might jeopardize the osseointegration process, such as current smokers (Vollmer et al., 2020). * Patients with parafunctional habits that produce overload on implant, such as bruxism and clenching (Sultana et al., 2020). * Alcohol or drug abuse (Ibrahim et al., 2020). * Pregnant and lactating women.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Implant stability	change from baseline at 3 month	assessing the stability using Osstell

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Radiographic bone density	change from baseline at 3 month	using CBCT in mm
Change in crestal bone level	change from baseline at 3 month	using CBCT in mm
Change in buccolingual bone width	change from baseline at 3 month	using CBCT in mm
Patient reported outcomes	at time of surgery	10 mm Visual analogue scale from 1 to 10 with 1 minimal pain and 10 worst pain experience

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

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