Long-term evaluation of dental implants after vertical bone augmentation using different grafting materials

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implants placed in areas undergoing segmental osteotomy with autogenous bone graft or non-ceramic hydroxyapatite inlay in the posterior mandibular region: a 10-year longitudinal study.

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

REBEC

Registry ID

RBR-6yc38q7

Enrollment

Registered

2026-02-23

Start date

2010-01-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-03-02

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

Conditions

Alveolar bone loss

Interventions

This is a longitudinal study following up implants for 10 years in a previous randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial. The control group consisted of 8 individuals who underwent a sandwich-ty

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Adult patients requiring rehabilitation with dental implants in the posterior region of the mandible, presenting with vertical bone deficiency indicated for bone augmentation through sandwich-type segmental osteotomy, who participated in the original study and signed the Informed Consent form.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patients who participated in the original study but could not be located or did not attend the late reassessment are considered losses to follow-up.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Expected outcome 1: It is expected that the evaluated implants from the test group and control group will have similar survival and success data, within the parameters observed in the literature.;Outcome found 1: the survival and success data for the groups were similar, with 81.25% success and survival for the control group and 93.75% for the test group, with an average of 87.5%, consistent with data observed in the literature.	—

Measure

Time frame

Expected outcome 1: It is expected that the evaluated implants from the test group and control group will have similar survival and success data, within the parameters observed in the literature.;Outcome found 1: the survival and success data for the groups were similar, with 81.25% success and survival for the control group and 93.75% for the test group, with an average of 87.5%, consistent with data observed in the literature.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Expected outcome 2: Implant stability, as measured by resonance frequency analysis, is expected to be greater than 57 in both cases, indicating minimum stability compatible with successful implantation.;Outcome finding 2: the average stability index of the implants in the control group was 65.92 and in the test group was 67.90, with no statistical difference between groups and consistent with successful implants;Expected outcome 3: Peri-implant marginal bone loss is expected to be similar between groups and within the expected range according to the criteria described in the literature.;Outcome found 3: there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, with an average peri-implant marginal bone loss of 1.57 mm in the control group and 1.84 mm in the test group, numbers that indicate implant success according to literature data.	—

Measure

Time frame

Expected outcome 2: Implant stability, as measured by resonance frequency analysis, is expected to be greater than 57 in both cases, indicating minimum stability compatible with successful implantation.;Outcome finding 2: the average stability index of the implants in the control group was 65.92 and in the test group was 67.90, with no statistical difference between groups and consistent with successful implants;Expected outcome 3: Peri-implant marginal bone loss is expected to be similar between groups and within the expected range according to the criteria described in the literature.;Outcome found 3: there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, with an average peri-implant marginal bone loss of 1.57 mm in the control group and 1.84 mm in the test group, numbers that indicate implant success according to literature data.

—

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public ContactAndrea Britto

Universidade de Guarulhos

andreabritto2013@gmail.com+5511999689997

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Mar 14, 2026