Tooth Loss
Conditions
Interventions
The study is divided into two double-blinded and randomized clinical trials: Study 1: Comparative evaluation of three implant designs with nano-hydroxyapatite (HANano) coating in different clinical si
Study 2: Comparative evaluation of two macrogeometries and two surface treatments (HANano and DAA), in addition to different instrumentation protocols (2 or 4 drills) in completely edentulous patients
Sponsors
Associação Salgado de Oliveira de Educação e Cultura
Centro Universitário do Triângulo - UNITRI
Eligibility
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Male and female patients; Patients aged between 18 and 75 years; Patients in good general health (physical and mental) at the time of surgery; Patients who provide free and informed consent
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Patients who smoke; Patients with a known history of current alcohol, drug, or medication abuse; Patients with systemic non-controlled diseases
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The primary variable in this study will be the clinical success of dental implants. It is expected that the success rate among the different types of implants, loading methods, and milling protocols will not differ by more than 3% | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Primary and secondary stability are expected will not differ by more than 10% between different implant types, loading methods, and milling protocols;Bone level will be assessed by measuring the distance from the implant platform to the top of the bone crest, evaluated by radiographic analysis. It is expected that this parameter will not differ by more than 0.5 mm between different implant types, loading methods, and milling protocols;Inflammation in the mucosa surrounding the implants will be assessed using the modified gingival inflammation index. It is expected that this parameter will not differ by more than 0.5 points on the inflammation score scale among the different types of implants, loading methods, and milling protocols;The probing depth around the implants will be evaluated by measuring the clinical distance from the peri-implant mucosal margin to the bottom of the peri-implant sulcus or pocket. It is expected that this parameter will not differ by more than 1.0 mm between different implant types, loading methods, and milling protocols;Bleeding on probing around the implants will be evaluated by measuring the bleeding that occurs after clinical probing. It is expected that this parameter will not differ by more than 10% among different implant types, loading methods, and milling protocols;The length of keratinized mucosa around the implants will be evaluated by measuring the clinical length from the peri-implant mucosal margin to the mucogingival junction. It is expected that this parameter will not differ by more than 1.0 mm among different implant types, loading methods, and milling protocols | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactRoberto Pessoa
Centro Universitário do Triângulo - UNITRI
Outcome results
None listed