Dental Implant, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
Conditions
Brief summary
Dental implant's surface properties significantly influence both biological and mechanical integration. Surface bio-treatment could accelerate and enhance bone regeneration, ensuring successful implantation. therefore, this study compares bone densification, primary and secondary stability, wound healing, and pain intensity between pre-coated antimicrobial surfaces of dental implants versus non-coated surfaces in controlled type 2 diabetic patients.
Interventions
OTHERPre coated impants
Pre coated impants with microstructured bioactive antimicrobial coating with double threading for higher bone-to-implant contact and faster bone gathering on the surface.
OTHERNon coated implant surface
Non-coated implant with double threading for higher bone-to-implant contact and faster bone gathering on the surface.
Sponsors
Hams Hamed Abdelrahman
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
Split Mouth Design
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
35 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Adequate interproximal space. * Adequate interocclusal space. * Adequate anatomical location, accessibility, and visualization for easy surgical implant placement. * Both genders. * Controlled medical condition
Exclusion criteria
* Presence of parafunctional dependency as bruxism. * Adjacent pathosis near the implant site. * Patient under radiotherapy targeting the head and neck. * Heavy smokers.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| change in implant stability | up to 4 months | implant stability will be assessed using Osstell device |
| change in pain intensity | 1st,3rd, and 7th days | pain was assessed using visual analogue scale that ranges from 0 (No pain) to 10 (untolerated pain) |
| Wound Healing score | 1st,3rd, and 7th days,14th day | Landry healing index was used; 1. Very poor Tissue color: ≥50% of gingiva red, Response to palpation: Bleeding, Granulation tissue:Present, Incision margin: Not epithelialized, with loss ofepithelium beyond incision margin, Suppuration: Present 2. Poor Tissue color: ≥50% of gingiva red, Response to palpation: Bleeding, Granulation tissue: Present, Incision margin: Not epithelialized, with connective tissue exposed 3. Good Tissue colour: ≥25% and\<50% of gingiva red, Response to palpation: No bleeding, Granulation tissue: None, Incision margin: No connective tissue exposed 4. Very good Tissue colour: \<25% of gingiva red, Response to palpation: No bleeding, Granulation tissue: None, Incision margin: No connective tissue exposed 5. Excellent Tissue color: All tissues pink, Response to palpation: No bleeding, Granulation tissue: None, Incision margin: No connective tissue expose |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Post operative complications | 6 months | Occurence of infection was assessed |
| Change in bone density | up to 4 months | CBCT was used to measure bone density |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed