Comparative evaluation of primary stability of dental implants in Conventional Ridge Split technique and Osseodensification in narrow mandibular ridge.
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 14
- 试验地点
- 1
- 主要终点
- The primary outcome used in sample size calculation reveal a moderate yet statistically significant difference favoring Group II primary stability. This signifies that the osseodensification technique would led to superior outcomes compared to the ridge splitting technique.
研究概览
简要总结
AIM:
The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the primary stability of implants in Osseo densification and conventional ridge split technique in narrow mandibular ridge
Materials and Methods: The study involved the division of 28 implants into two distinct groups. Group I comprised 14 implants subjected to the RIDGESPLIT technique, while Group II included 14 implants treated with the osseodensification technique. Subsequently, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted. Clinical evaluation of primary stability after implant insertion was performed using the Osstell Mentor magnetic resonance device.
Results: An unpaired t-test was employed to compare the two groups, revealing a moderate statistically significant difference in Group II when compared with Group I in primary stability.
Conclusion: Primary stability is affected by the osteotomy technique. Dental implants installed after osseodensification presented higher levels of insertion torque than ridgesplit technique.
The results strongly favor the osseodensification technique, suggesting that it enhances bone density, thereby contributing to improved implant primary stability.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Coin toss, Lottery, toss of dice, shuffling cards etc
- 盲法
- Participant Blinded
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 30.00 Year(s) 至 55.00 Year(s)（—）
- 性别
- All
入选标准
- •1 Dental Condition: The presence of good oral hygiene.
- •2 Patients with extended posterior edentulous mandibular areas, encompassing a minimum of two missing teeth ie 36/37 or 46/47 3 Patients willing to actively participate in the study.
- •4 Minimum bone height of 12mm measured from the crest of the ridge to the upper border of the inferior alveolar canal.
- •5 Minimum ridge thickness of 3mm, with measurements less than 5mm at the crestal region.
- •6 Implant sites in consideration included both compact bone and cancellous bone.
排除标准
- •Uncontrolled systemic conditions.
- •Systemic disorders that could compromise osseointegration.
- •Use of medications, such as steroids, that could impact bone metabolism.
- •4 Smokers was excluded from the study.
结局指标
主要结局
The primary outcome used in sample size calculation reveal a moderate yet statistically significant difference favoring Group II primary stability. This signifies that the osseodensification technique would led to superior outcomes compared to the ridge splitting technique.
时间窗: The outcome will be assessed/ estimated immediately after implant placement and prosthesis will be given after 3 months.
次要结局
- The compelling evidence from this study would strongly support the superiority of the osseodensification technique. This preference is attributed to the techniques capacity to enhance bone density, thereby contributing to an overall improvement in implant primary stability.(The outcome will be assessed/estimated immediately after implant placement & prosthesis will be given after 3 months.)
研究者
Dr Meghna Agarwal
ACPM DENTAL COLLEGE, DHULE