Active clinical trials for "Mouth, Edentulous"

Dental implants are often the preferred treatment option and in some clinical scenarios they are considered the standard of care to restore missing or damaged teeth, due to the limitations of conventional treatments. For fully edentulous subjects, conventional tissue-supported dentures in some cases are associated with severe subjective complaints and difficult adaptation, mainly the mandibular denture, resulting in limited function and detrimental effects on oral health-related quality of life, especially for older patients. The use of implants to retain a mandibular denture (overdenture) has been recommended as a suitable and low-cost alternative to improve denture stability, with positive effects on oral comfort and function. The two-implant mandibular overdenture has been considered an effective design to achieve clinical benefits for patients. However, the main problem facing two-implant overdenture is the high cost of implantation and the relative complexity of the surgical intervention, so the use of a single midline implant to retain a mandibular overdenture was suggested as a more viable solution for reducing costs and complexity of treatment with similar benefits compared to solutions with higher number of implants. Nevertheless, there are few studies that compared the performance of different retention systems and their effects on patient-centered outcomes, such as satisfaction with the dentures, oral health-related quality of life, individual preferences and other subjective ratings of clinical outcomes. Thus, the aim of this randomized clinical trial with a crossover design is to investigate the changes in clinical and patient-reported outcomes following the use of different retention systems for a single implant-retained mandibular overdenture Hypothesis: it was hypothesized that clinical and patient-reported outcomes of a single-implant mandibular overdenture is dependent on the type of retention system, and patients have distinct preferences in relation to different attachments

Evaluation of dimensional changes in alveolar ridge following immediate implantation compared to delayed implantation evaluation of the effect of gap dimensions between socket walls and dental implant in implant stability

The purpose of this study is to assess the change of crestal bone level at the Titanium Zirconium (TiZr) compared to Titanium (grade IV) implant between surgery and 6, 12, 24, and 36 month post surgery.

The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the mandibular overdenture retained by one and two implants, based on a randomized clinical trial.

This is a randomized clinical trial designed to assess the 1-year effectiveness of two treatment modalities for the mandibular edentulists: conventional complete dentures and single-implant mandibular overdenture.

Comparison of early and late loading of implants supporting full each prosthesis in upper jaw, using the Cresco prosthetic system on Straumann implants. The study hypothesis is that there is no difference between the bone loss (or gain) between the groups.

Sinus augmentation, also referred to as a sinus lift or a sinus graft, is an oral surgery procedure where bone is added to the upper jaw near the molars. The goal of the surgery is to add enough bone material onto the upper jaw to support the placement of a dental implant. The augmentation and the dental implant placement will be done at the same time to avoid the need for two surgeries. This is standard of care. The purpose of this study is to compare any problems and patient comfort levels following surgery. Subjects will be randomly placed into one of two groups: the internal lift group or the external lift group. Both types of surgery are routinely done at our clinic. Usually the type of procedure (internal or external) is based on the dentist's preference. Investigators are doing this study to compare them to each other to see if one is more comfortable for the subject than the other or if they are equal. It is predicted that the two techniques may differ when it comes to complications during the procedure, patient discomfort following the procedure and patient complications in the weeks and months after the procedure. This last comparison has not yet been studied, and surgeons often choose the technique that they prefer from their own experiences. With this research study researchers hope to gain valuable information that will help surgeons' decisions in the future. Investigators hypothesize that external sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement (external technique) will have a higher rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation than the internal sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement (internal technique). Investigators hypothesize that the internal technique is associated with more discomfort for the subject compared with the external technique. Investigators hypothesize that the external technique will result in more severe pain/bleeding/swelling than the internal technique. Investigators hypothesize that the internal technique has a higher incidence of complications that occur between three weeks and three months postoperatively compared with the external technique. Investigators hypothesize that the external technique has a higher amount of analgesics taken postoperatively compared with the internal technique

The purpose of this study is to test two standard of care techniques of placing dental implants, and to compare how people's bones and gums respond to two different depths at which implants are placed.

Objective of the present study was to assess the peri-implant soft tissue profiles between argon plasma pre-treated (PT) and non-treated (NPT) abutments by comparing clinical and histological parameters 2 months after abutment placement.

A randomized clinical trial (RCT) was designed. The participants were randomly allocated into either of the two groups intervention or control group each of 14 participants. Participants in control group (Group-A) received conventional manufactured implant overdenture while participants in intervention group (Group-B) received CAD-CAM manufactured implant overdenture.