Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT04854239
NCT04854239
Completed
Phase 4

Accuracy of Half-guided Implant Placement With Machine-driven or Manual Insertion: a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study

Semmelweis University1 site in 1 country40 target enrollmentJanuary 1, 2017

Overview

Phase
Phase 4
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Partial-edentulism
Sponsor
Semmelweis University
Enrollment
40
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Global apical implant position deviation
Status
Completed
Last Updated
5 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

The aim of the present prospective randomized controlled study is to compare the accuracy of implant placement performed either with a surgical motor or a torque wrench as part of a half-guided surgical protocol after maxillary sinus floor augmentation.

Detailed Description

Implant insertion with half-guided surgical protocol was utilized by surgical motor (machine-driven group) or torque wrench (manual group) in the maxilla. Forty patients were randomly divided in two study groups; 20 implants were inserted with a surgical motor and 20 implants with a torque wrench. After the healing period, accuracy comparison method between planned and actual implant positions was performed based on digital intraoral scan. Coronal, apical and angular deviation parameters, insertion time and maximum insertion torque was evaluated.

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
January 1, 2017
End Date
January 31, 2019
Last Updated
5 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Study Design
Parallel
Sex
All

Investigators

Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Balint Molnar

Dr. Balint Molnar DMD, PhD, associate professor

Semmelweis University

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • at least one edentulous maxillary premolar or molar site treated successfully by sinus floor elevation with a xenogenic bone substitute (cerabone, botiss biomaterials, Zossen, Germany) confirmed by preoperative cone-beam computed tomography
  • full- mouth plaque and bleeding scores (FMPS and FMBS) \<20%
  • good patient compliance (including willingness to participate in the follow-up procedures)
  • signed informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

  • clinically relevant diseases (e.g.: diabetes, rheumatism, cancer)
  • systemic steroid or bisphosphonate use
  • acute or chronic inflammatory processes

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Global apical implant position deviation

Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement

Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm

Horizontal coronal implant position deviation

Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement

Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm

Global coronal implant position deviation

Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement

Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm

Horizontal apical implant position deviation

Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement

Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm

Angular implant position deviation

Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement

Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm

Secondary Outcomes

  • Implant insertion torque(During implant insertion)
  • Duration of implant insertion(During implant insertion)

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials