Implant Stability and Osseointegration, Laser Effect Around Dental Implant
Conditions
Keywords
dental implant, Osseodensification, Low-Level Laser Therapy
Brief summary
A comparative clinical study on 16 patients with Type IV bone, divided into two groups (n=8): implants placed using Densah burs only versus Densah burs combined with laser bio stimulation, to evaluate implant stability and healing.
Detailed description
This study was designed as a comparative clinical trial involving two groups of patients receiving dental implants. A total of 16 patients are included, divided equally into two groups (n=8 each). * Group 1: Implant placement using Densah burs only. * Group 2: Implant placement using Densah burs combined with laser bio stimulation. Both groups were selected with Type IV bone
Interventions
PROCEDUREimplant placement using Densah burs
Using only Densah burs
PROCEDUREimplantation using Densah burs with Laser biostimulation
laser was used combined with Densah burs during implantation
Sponsors
Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
outcome assessor and statistical analysis helper
Intervention model description
This study was designed as a comparative clinical trial involving two groups of patients receiving dental implants. A total of 16 patients are included, divided equally into two groups (n=8 each). * Group 1: Implant placement using Densah burs only. * Group 2: Implant placement using Densah burs combined with laser biostimulation.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
30 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Missing premolar and molar maxillary area with type IV bone density, (based on CBCT and number of Hounsfield units (HU). * Patients age should be in the range from 30 up to 60 years old. * Free from any systemic conditions and no previous drug affect bone metabolism.
Exclusion criteria
* Smoking * Pregnant women * Patients in variation in anatomical landmarks * Patients with psychological problems * Patients with bad oral hygiene * Patients with parafunction habits.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| immediate primary implant stability | immediately | Immediate primary implant stability was assessed through the measurement of insertion torque. The unit of measurement is (N.cm) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Implant stability and ossification | 6 months follow up | After 6 months following up it was measured clinically using osstell |
| Modified Plaque Index | after 12 months following up. | Recorded at 4 surfaces per implant (Mesial, distal, buccal \& lingual) and expressed as Mean value With scoring (0-3) 0= No Plaque, 1= plaque detected by probe, 2= visible plaque, 3= abundant plaque. |
| Probing depth | after 12 months following up. | PD measured at 6 sites per implant using a calibrated periodontal probe and expressed in mm (mean value). |
| Modified gingival index | after 12 months following up. | MGI assessed at four sites per implant and averaged. Scoring (0-3); 0= normal, 1= mild inflammation, 2= moderate inflammation, 3= severe bleeding tendency. |
Countries
Egypt
Contacts
STUDY_CHAIREtimad Ah shoreibah, professor
prof. of oral medicine, periodontology, Diagnosis and radiology
STUDY_DIRECTORlobna mo abdelaziz, lecturer
lacturer of oral medicine, perio, diagnosis and radiology
Outcome results
None listed