[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"implant-stability\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:implant-stability":29},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,5,0,[8,48,74,98,126],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":20,"enrollmentInfo":21,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":25,"briefSummary":27,"conditions":28,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":36,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":37,"startDateStruct":40,"completionDateStruct":42,"leadSponsor":44,"locationsCount":47},"100618893","evaluation-of-two-mini-implant-diameters-in-the-infra-zygomatic-crest-region-100618893",false,"NCT07337538","Evaluation of Two Mini-implant Diameters in the Infra-zygomatic Crest Region.","Evaluation of Two Mini-implant Diameters in the Infra-zygomatic Crest Region (Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Trial)","TADs","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Individuals aged between 15 and 38 years.\n2. Patients currently undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances who require mini-implant placement in the upper buccal posterior region (IZC) for full-arch distalization or en-masse retraction.\n3. Patients willing and able to adhere to the study protocol.\n4. Recommended for the use of bilateral mini-implants.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Syndromic conditions, facial trauma, or previous bone-related surgery.",true,"ALL","15 Years","38 Years",{"count":22,"type":23},20,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[26],"NA","The goal of this clinical trials is to compare two diameters, 1.6 and 2 mm, of mini implants both are 12 mm length placed in the infrazygomatic crest region. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\nwhich diameter is more suitable for IZC region 1.6 or 2mm in terms of primary stability, secondary stability, pain perception and failure rate.\n\n20 participant will receive 40 mini implant bilaterally (20 in one side of 1.6mm, the other side 20 of 2mm).\n\nparticipants will be asked to record visual analog scale (VAS) for 3 nights monitored monthly by the investigator.",[29],"Implant Stability",[31,32,33,34],"temporary anchorage device stability","Tads","mini implant","miniscrew","RECRUITING","2026-01-15",{"date":38,"type":39},"2026-01-20","ACTUAL",{"date":41,"type":39},"2026-01-14",{"date":43,"type":23},"2026-11-01",{"name":45,"class":46},"University of Baghdad","OTHER",2,{"id":49,"slug":50,"hasResults":11,"nctId":51,"briefTitle":52,"officialTitle":53,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":54,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":55,"maxAge":56,"enrollmentInfo":57,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":59,"briefSummary":60,"conditions":61,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":63,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":64,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":65,"startDateStruct":67,"completionDateStruct":69,"leadSponsor":71,"locationsCount":73},"100592371","clinical-evaluation-of-biological-drilling-osteotomy-protocol-versus-conventional-drilling-osteotomy-protocol-100592371","NCT06992557","Clinical Evaluation of Biological Drilling Osteotomy Protocol Versus Conventional Drilling Osteotomy Protocol","Clinical Evaluation of Biological Drilling Osteotomy Protocol Versus Conventional Drilling Osteotomy Protocol in the Mandibular Posterior Area a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Systemically healthy male and female patients, aged 21 to 60 years old,\n* Indicated for delayed implant placement in the posterior mandibular arch.\n* Good oral health.\n* Willingness to sign the informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Heavy smoker (\\> 10 cigarettes\u002Fday)\n* Pregnant females\n* Contraindication for Implant surgery.\n* Patients with poor oral hygiene.\n* A history of radiotherapy in the head or neck region.\n* Patients with systemic disease like uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, coagulation disorders, alcohol or drug abuse not suitable for implantation.","21 Years","60 Years",{"count":58,"type":23},28,[26],"This study aims to evaluate the effect of biological drilling osteotomy protocol compared to conventional osteotomy protocol in delayed implant placement in the posterior mandible regarding implant stability Type of study design: Randomized Clinical Trial In patient indicated for delayed implant placement in the lower posterior mandible will the use of biological drilling protocol osteotomy compared to conventional drilling protocol osteotomy differ regarding implant stability at three months?",[29,62],"Low Speed Drilling","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2025-05-19",{"date":66,"type":39},"2025-05-28",{"date":68,"type":23},"2025-06",{"date":70,"type":23},"2026-01",{"name":72,"class":46},"Cairo University",1,{"id":75,"slug":76,"hasResults":11,"nctId":77,"briefTitle":78,"officialTitle":79,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":80,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":81,"maxAge":82,"enrollmentInfo":83,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":85,"briefSummary":86,"conditions":87,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":89,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":90,"startDateStruct":92,"completionDateStruct":94,"leadSponsor":96,"locationsCount":73},"100570784","isq-differences-between-different-implants-in-post-extraction-sockets-100570784","NCT06711744","ISQ Differences Between Different Implants in Post-extraction Sockets","Effect of Time and Local Factors on Hydrophilic Tissue Level Implants in Post-extraction Sites: a RCT","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients (at least 18 years old) presenting with failing tooth.\n* no recession of gingival contour of tooth to be extracted\n* no periodontal bone loss of neighboring teeth\n* no implants in neighboring teeth\n* class I extraction socket (intact buccal wall)\n* atraumatic extraction of the tooth with intact socket walls remaining.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* deep bite (severe II class)\n* systemic disease (diabetes, osteoporosis)\n* heavy smokers (more than 10 cigarettes\u002Fday)","18 Years","99 Years",{"count":84,"type":23},30,[26],"Two different implants will be used in post-extraction sockets and ISQ will be recorded monthly from insertion moment to 12 months of follow up to understand if ISQ can be affected by implant macro design",[88,29],"Bone Healing","2025-03-24",{"date":91,"type":39},"2025-03-28",{"date":93,"type":39},"2025-01-31",{"date":95,"type":23},"2027-02-28",{"name":97,"class":46},"University of Rome Tor Vergata",{"id":99,"slug":100,"hasResults":11,"nctId":101,"briefTitle":102,"officialTitle":103,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":104,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":105,"maxAge":106,"enrollmentInfo":107,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":109,"briefSummary":110,"conditions":111,"keywords":112,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":118,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":119,"startDateStruct":121,"completionDateStruct":123,"leadSponsor":125,"locationsCount":73},"100562126","clinical-and-radiographic-evaluation-of-implant-stability-in-healed-maxillary-posterior-sites-comparing-osteotome-osseodensification-and-conventional-drilling-implant-placement-techniques-100562126","NCT06599112","Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Implant Stability in Healed Maxillary Posterior Sites Comparing Osteotome, Osseodensification and Conventional Drilling Implant Placement Techniques","Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Implant Stability in Healed Maxillary Posterior Sites Comparing Osteotome, Osseodensification and Conventional Drilling Implant Placement Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with an age range of 25-70 years\n* Patients with systemic health\n* Patient with missing teeth in the upper posterior area\n* Patients with D3 or D4 type of alveolar bone\n* Healed bony sites with sufficient dimension for implant placement\n\n  * Vertical height (≥ 10 mm)\n  * Bucco-lingual dimension (≥ 5.5 mm)\n  * Mesio-distal width (≥6.5 mm)\n* Patients with periodontal health (PD \\\u003C 4mm, BOP \\\u003C 10%)\n* Inter-arch space of 7.5 to allow implant restoration\n* Good oral hygiene\n* Cooperative patients who accepted the trial follow up period and sign the informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnant females\n* Smokers\n* Patients with habits that may compromise the longevity and affect the result of the implant as alcoholism or parafunctional habits\n* History of radiotherapy or use of bisphosphonates","25 Years","70 Years",{"count":108,"type":23},36,[26],"This study aims to compare the implant stability values following implant placement via Osteotomes and via Osseodensification using Densah Burs versus implant placement using conventional drilling technique in patients with upper posterior partially edentulous ridges as well as evaluating the crestal bone loss around temporary restorations following the three compared drilling techniques.",[29],[113,114,115,116,117],"Dental implant placement","Osseodensification","Osteotomes","Implant stability","Crestal bone loss","2024-09-12",{"date":120,"type":39},"2024-09-19",{"date":122,"type":23},"2024-09",{"date":124,"type":23},"2025-12",{"name":72,"class":46},{"id":127,"slug":128,"hasResults":11,"nctId":129,"briefTitle":130,"officialTitle":131,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":132,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":81,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":133,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":135,"briefSummary":136,"conditions":137,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":141,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":142,"startDateStruct":144,"completionDateStruct":146,"leadSponsor":148,"locationsCount":73},"100555759","effect-of-l-prf-on-implant-stability-and-marginal-bone-levels-100555759","NCT06516263","Effect of L-PRF on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Levels.","A Randomised Control Clinical Trial Investigating the Effect of L-PRF on Implant Stability and Marginal Bone Levels.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPatient Level\n\n* Male or Female, 18 years old or over\n* Capacity to provide informed consent\n* Willing to comply with study appointment schedule Willing to maintain a diary of symptoms\n* Planned for provision of dental implant(s) at Dublin Dental University Hospital Site Level\n* Location: maxilla and mandible\n* Sufficient bone volume for implant placement without the need for bone graft\u002Faugmentation; alveolar ridge of minimum 6mm width for standard implants (implant diameter 4mm) and of minimum 7mm for wider implants (implant diameter 5mm)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient Level\n* Plaque score \\>20%\n* Bleeding score \\>20%\n* Tobacco smoking\n* Uncontrolled systemic disease\n* Use of systemic medications with an expected impact on bone healing (e.g. bisphosphonates)\n* Pregnancy or lactation\n* lack of capacity to give informed consent\n* Previous radiation to the head and\u002For neck Site Level\n* Insufficient bone volume for implant placement, requiring bone graft\u002Faugmentation",{"count":134,"type":23},50,[26],"Osseointegration refers to the formation of a structure and functional bone-to-bone interface, without the interposition of soft tissue. Successful osseointegration is imperative to implant success and relies on a number of factors including implant design, material, surface and finish the bone status, surgical technique and implant loading conditions. Primary implant stability is the bio-mechanical stability achieved for implants at the time of placement and is achieved through micromovements of the implant. Following healing of the osteotomy site and formation of new bone a biological fixation of the implant to bone results and is referred to as secondary implant stability. Such as with osseointegration, there are several factors that affect primary implant stability including insertion torque, implant design, density of bone and surgical technique. To achieve future implant osseointegration, primary stability must first be accomplished.\n\nLeukocyte and platelet rich fibrin (L-PRF) is formed by centrifuging venous blood using an IntraSpin® machine (U.S Food and Drug Administration approved and CE marked for in-vivo use) at 2700 revolutions per minute for 12 minutes. Following removal from the L-PRF tubes the fibrin clot is separated from the red blood cell clot. The fibrin clot is then transferred to the PRF box and the Xpression™ tray is placed over the fibrin clot and after 5 minutes the L-PRF membrane is ready for use.\n\nDuring the traditional implant placement there is an osteotomy cut in practical terms is a controlled fracture of the bone resulting in rupture of local blood vessels which almost immediately sparks a cascade of healing including hemostasis, inflammation and proliferation of cells and tissue maturation. Our study will include Leukocyte platelet rich fibrin surrounding the implant at the osteotomy site which is a robust fibrin mesh which provides a progressive release of growth factors improving angiogenesis, osteoblastic proliferation, and cell differentiation. L-PRF utilization during implant placement attempts to expedite the process by delivering growth factors to the surface of the implant and surrounding bone promoting the healing process. Experimental research has shown that delivery of molecules or growth factors to an implants surface may increase osteoblast activity and improve functional integration of the implant.\n\nPre-clinical tests have shown that the utilization of platelet growth factors improve wound healing, proliferation of cells and implant osseointegration in animal models. Further pre-clinical studies have shown that L-PRF increased the rate and amount of new bone formation in rabbits.\n\nLimited human tests in small populations not including the mandible have shown positive outcomes with improvement in implant stability when L-PRF was utilized during implant placement. High quality clinical evidence on this topic is limited and must be improved to allow clinicians to make evidence-based decisions on L-PRF utilization.\n\nThe proposed study will be a randomized control trial comparing the use of L-PRF in implant placement versus conventional implant placement. Considering the extra step of phlebotomy and time for centrifuging of the blood samples the literature must show a clinical benefit if this technique is to be utilized into the future. This study aims to add to available clinical evidence and address some of the limitations in current evidence to aid clinicians to make evidence-based decisions on whether to utilize LPRF to improve implant stability and hence earlier loading of implants.",[138,29,139,140],"Dental Implant","Marginal Bone Levels","L-PRF","2024-07-18",{"date":143,"type":39},"2024-07-23",{"date":145,"type":39},"2024-06-01",{"date":147,"type":23},"2026-09",{"name":149,"class":46},"Dublin Dental University Hospital"]