Skip to content

IIP vs ARP

Immediate implant placement versus alveolar ridge preservation with delayed implant placement: a randomized controlled clinical trial on patient-reported outcome measures - IIP vs ARP

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
NL-OMON
Registry ID
NL-OMON58082
Enrollment
20
Registered
2025-02-18
Start date
2026-01-28
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2026-05-18

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

Conditions

Implantology, tooth replacement Implants, Crowns, Screws

Interventions

The study intervention (IIP) involves a surgical procedure that includes the extraction of the natural tooth and the simultaneous replacement with an implant (immediate implant placement, IIP). The pr

Sponsors

Erasmus MC, Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Age
18 Years to 99 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: • At least 18 years old• Presence of a failing tooth in the anterior region • Periodontally healthy patients (periodontal probing depths ? 4 mm) (full mouth)• Good oral hygiene (full mouth plaque index <25%); • Adequate control of inflammation (full mouth bleeding on probing <25%); 

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: • Pregnant or lactating women• Smokers (>10 cigarettes/day)• Currently taking drugs that influence bone metabolism• Systemic or local conditions presenting a contraindication to implant treatment• Use of bisphosphonates in the last 5 years

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The primary outcome of the study will be the midfacial mucosal recession between pre-extraction and crown delivery (2 weeks after crown delivery).

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Secondary endpoints:Overall patient satisfaction 2 weeks after crown placement (BL2) measured with a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied).OHIP-14 (Oral Health Impact Profile, Questionnaire) during screening, 2 weeks after crown placement (BL2), and in the long-term follow-up phase (after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years).Pain assessment after each procedure (extraction and implantation).Overall patient satisfaction after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years follow-up.Overall dentist satisfaction 2 weeks after crown placement and after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years follow-up.Horizontal thickness (in mm) of the regenerated bone on the buccal side of the implant after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years follow-up.Clinical parameters (Pocket Depth, Plaque Control Record, Modified sulcus Bleeding Index, Bleeding On Probing, Keratinized Mucosa, crown height) of the investigated site and adjacent teeth during screening and at different later time points (BL2, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years follow-up).Contour changes (in mm) on the buccal side of the extraction site from before extraction (BL1) to BL2 (2 weeks after crown placement) and to 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years follow-up.PES/WES score (Pink Esthetic Score; White Esthetic Score) before and after crown placement (2 weeks after placement, after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years follow-up).Ease of treatment by the dentist (from extraction to implantation) measured with a numerical rating scale (NRS).

Countries

Netherlands, Switzerland

Contacts

Public ContactM Chin

Erasmus MC, Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam

m.chin@erasmusmc.nl0683218306

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: May 22, 2026