search
Back to results

An Implant With an Acid-etched Fixture Surface and Internal-hex Collar May Achieve Greater Osseointegration.

Primary Purpose

Jaw, Edentulous, Dental Implant

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Canada
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Configuration 1
Configuration 2
Configuration 3
Sponsored by
Université de Montréal
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Jaw, Edentulous focused on measuring Dental Implants Microtextured Fixture Machined Collar Bone

Eligibility Criteria

25 Years - 56 Years (Adult)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

No systemic disease (ASA Class 1)

Aged between 25 and 56 years

Non-smoking

No Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) disorder or other facial pain

Wearing of complete maxillary and mandibular removable prostheses for at least one year

Skeletal Class 1 inter-maxillary relationship

Type 2 and/or Type 3 mandibular bone quality

Possess at least 1 cm of bone height between the superior and inferior cortical tables and at least 6 mm of bucco-lingual bone width between mental foramen

Specifically requesting a fixed full arch dental prosthesis over the implants and a conventional full arch removable maxillary prosthesis

Accepting to sign informed consent documents.

Sites / Locations

  • Université de Montréal

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm 3

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Experimental

Experimental

Arm Label

Configuration 1

Configuration 2

Configuration 3

Arm Description

Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at one site

Device placement: B (Brånemark) at one site, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites

Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at one site, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest was measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 12 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 24 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded at 15 to 20 years of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3

Secondary Outcome Measures

Full Information

First Posted
July 6, 2012
Last Updated
December 15, 2020
Sponsor
Université de Montréal
Collaborators
Medical Research Council of Canada, FRSQ, CoreVent, Université de Montréal
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01641198
Brief Title
An Implant With an Acid-etched Fixture Surface and Internal-hex Collar May Achieve Greater Osseointegration.
Official Title
Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Quantitative Osseous Healing of Acid Etched and Machined Titanium Implant Fixtures After 12 and 24 Months, and at 15-20 Years of Function With Full Arch Fixed Mandibular Prostheses.
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
December 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
March 1992 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
March 24, 1998 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
September 30, 2013 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Université de Montréal
Collaborators
Medical Research Council of Canada, FRSQ, CoreVent, Université de Montréal

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
Yes
Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.
Yes
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
Brånemark System® dental implant osseointegration was introduced clinically in 1965 as a novel approach to the replacement of missing teeth. Although this implant's traditional machined screw-shaped surface had excellent, well-documented short- and long-term osseointegration success, newer implant designs were introduced that could enhance biological fusion of the implant to jaw bones, allowing more rapid restoration and function. It was also claimed that such implants could lead to less bone loss with function. One such implant, Screw-Vent®, had a macrostructure very similar to that of the Brånemark implant, except that it's fixture surface was acid-etched which could enhance biological osseointegration. It also had a longer narrower smooth internal-hex interlocking flat collar that could better resist occlusal forces, leading to even less bone loss according to the manufacturer. However, no well-controlled clinical studies existed in 1990 that supported these claims. This study was undertaken, therefore, to first compare the Brånemark implant with another implant, Swede-Vent®, a copy of the Brånemark implant except for its fixture surface that was identically acid-etched as that of Screw-Vent by the same manufacturer. The effect on bone healing could then be compared between Brånemark's machined and Swede-Vent's acid-etched surfaces in the short- and long-terms. Our hypothesis was that the microtextured Swede-Vent fixture would lead to greater bone preservation. Since Screw-Vent's fixture surface was identically acid-etched as that of Swede-Vent by the same manufacturer, we could then evaluate the effect on bone healing of Screw-Vent's collar and the shorter wider machined smooth external-hex flat collar of Swede-Vent (identical to that of Brånemark). All three 2-part platform-matched parallel-wall implants were made of commercially pure titanium, had a very similar fixture macro-design, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (USA) and Health and Welfare Canada, and were commercially available in North America. Brånemark is still available, but with an oxidized microtextured fixture surface and a shortened machined smooth external-hex flat collar. Screw-Vent is still available with its microtextured fixture surface, but its machined smooth internal-hex flat collar has also been substantially shortened. Swede-Vent is no longer available.
Detailed Description
This prospective randomized long-term superiority clinical trial tests the hypothesis that an implant with an acid-etched fixture surface and internal-hex machined flat collar results in greater bone preservation. Age-eligible participants were recruited into this study between 1990 and 1992 from the external clinics of a university dental faculty and hospital affiliated dental department. Study was peer reviewed, had satisfied ethics committee's criteria for human clinical research, and was to take place at the university dental faculty and hospital affiliated department. Sixty participants were enrolled. The study's coordinator evaluated clinical charts to confirm that participants had satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria, and that registry operations, data collection, documentation and analysis followed established protocol. A statistician who was not part of the research team prepared a sampling design that included three Configurations. Each Configuration contained five implants of the three types, thereby allowing an equal number of each implant type to be placed in a cyclical side-by-side rotating fashion at each of five sites between the mental foramen. Consequently, 100 implants of each of the three types were to be placed for a total of 300. However, two participants opted out before start of study so that 58 (30 women) received 290 implants, and each participant acted as their own control. A different identification number was placed on each participant's chart, and allocation concealment then allowed 20 participants to receive Configuration 1, 19 Configuration 2, and 19 Configuration 3. Configuration diagram (but not number) identifying the implant type and length to be placed at each site was stored inside each chart, and only shown to the operating team at surgery. Following restoration with a fixed complete dental prosthesis on the implants, each participant was examined and standardized peri-apical radiographs were taken of each implant after 12 and 24 months and at 15-20 years of function. Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and crestal abutment-implant interface/microgap (MG) was measured at right and left sides of each abutment-implant surface on the radiographs by examiners who were not part of the research team. Mean fBIC-MG values were then calculated, documented and compared between Brånemark, Swede-Vent and Screw-vent at the three intervals. Assessment was based on intention to treat. Inter and intra-examiner reliability of measurements was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Bland-Altman Repeatability. Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model that included fixed effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect). Position and time were repeated within participants, and Shapiro-Wilk Test was applied to verify that data was following normal distribution. Bonferroni correction was used for pairwise comparisons, and a p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Confidence Interval was established at 2-sided 95% Confidence Level. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23® (IBM Corp, Armonk US). The following were consulted in order to utilize standardized descriptive terms. American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (1963) was used to classify each participant's physical health as Class 1 (obligatory). Lekholm-Zarb Classification System (1987) was used to classify each participant's quality (density) of mandibular bone as Types 2 and 3 (obligatory). Salzman Skeletal Bone Intermaxillary Classification System (1966) was used to classify each participant's profile skeletal relationship between maxilla and mandible as Class 1 (obligatory). American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual (2001, fifth edition, Washington, DC) was used to describe certain participant baseline demographic characteristics.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Jaw, Edentulous, Dental Implant
Keywords
Dental Implants Microtextured Fixture Machined Collar Bone

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantCare ProviderInvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
58 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Configuration 1
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at one site
Arm Title
Configuration 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Device placement: B (Brånemark) at one site, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites
Arm Title
Configuration 3
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at one site, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Configuration 1
Intervention Description
B placed at sites 2 and 5, SW placed at sites 1 and 4, SC placed at site 3
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Configuration 2
Intervention Description
B placed at site 3, SW placed at sites 2 and 5, SC placed at sites 1 and 4
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Configuration 3
Intervention Description
B placed at sites 1 and 4, SW placed at site 3, SC placed at sites 2 and 5
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Description
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest was measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 12 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Time Frame
After 12 months of function
Title
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Description
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 24 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Time Frame
After 24 months of function
Title
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
Description
Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded at 15 to 20 years of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3
Time Frame
At 15-20 years of function

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
25 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
56 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Eligibility Criteria
No systemic disease (ASA Class 1) Aged between 25 and 56 years Non-smoking No Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) disorder or other facial pain Wearing of complete maxillary and mandibular removable prostheses for at least one year Skeletal Class 1 inter-maxillary relationship Type 2 and/or Type 3 mandibular bone quality Possess at least 1 cm of bone height between the superior and inferior cortical tables and at least 6 mm of bucco-lingual bone width between mental foramen Specifically requesting a fixed full arch dental prosthesis over the implants and a conventional full arch removable maxillary prosthesis Accepting to sign informed consent documents.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Patrice Milot, DMD,MSD
Organizational Affiliation
Université de Montréal
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Hugo Ciaburro, DMD, MSc
Organizational Affiliation
Université de Montréal
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Aldo-Joseph Camarda, DDS, MSc
Organizational Affiliation
Université de Montréal
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Université de Montréal
City
Montreal
State/Province
Quebec
ZIP/Postal Code
H3C 3J7
Country
Canada

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No

Learn more about this trial

An Implant With an Acid-etched Fixture Surface and Internal-hex Collar May Achieve Greater Osseointegration.

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs