Peri-Implant Healing Around Two Different Machined-Collar Designs After 25 Years of Function

U

Université de Montréal

Status

Completed

Conditions

Jaw, Edentulous

Treatments

Device: Brånemark® 2, Swede-Vent® 1, Screw-Vent® 2 (Configuration 3)
Device: Brånemark® 1, Swede-Vent® 2, Screw-Vent® 2 (Configuration 2)
Device: Brånemark® 2, Swede-Vent® 2, Screw-Vent® 1 (Configuration 1)

Study type

Interventional

Funder types

Other

Identifiers

NCT03862482
CERC-19-015-P

Details and patient eligibility

About

Brånemark System® dental implant osseointegration was introduced in 1965 as a novel approach to the replacement of missing teeth. Although this implant's machined, screw-shaped surface had excellent, well-documented, short- and long-term clinical success (Adell, R. 1987; Albrektsson, T., et al., 1981; Albrektsson, T., et al., 1986; Brånemark, P-I. , 1983; Brånemark P-I. 1987), newer implant designs were introduced that could enhance fusion of the implant to jaw bones, and better resist functional forces. One such implant, Screw-Vent®, has a fixture macro structure very similar to that of the Brånemark® implant. However, its fixture surface was acid etched (1-3µm) which could enhance osseointegration, and it has a longer, narrower machined internal-hex, friction-fit collar that could better resist functional forces.These characteristics should lead to less bone loss (Niznick, G. A., 1989). However, one clinical study (De Bruyen, et al., 1992) reported greater short-term bone loss with this implant compared to the Brånemark® implant, possibly due to its longer machined collar, and advocated long-term clinical studies. Therefore, this prospective within-subject clinical trial was undertaken in 1993 to first compare the Brånemark® implant with another implant, Swede-Vent®, a copy of the Brånemark® macro structure except for its fixture surface that was identically micro textured 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 micro textured fixture surfaces in the short- and long-terms. Since Screw-Vent®'s fixture surface was identically micro textured as that of Swede-Vent®, the investigators could then evaluate and compare the effects on bone healing of Screw-Vent®'s longer, narrower, internal-connection machined collar to the identical shorter, wider, external-connection machined collars of the Swede-Vent® and Brånemark® implants. All three two-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® and Screw-Vent® implants are still available, but the Swede-Vent® implant is not.

Full description

Therefore, between 1993 and 1996, 58 of 60 eligible participants had been recruited into a prospective, randomized clinical trial. This trial had been peer reviewed, had received ethical approval, and had taken place at the Université de Montréal's Faculty of Dental Medicine and its affiliated hospital dental department. Follow-up documentation occurred at one year, two years, and 15 to 20 years following prostheses attachment (ClinicalTrials Identification Number NCT01641198), and the results were published (Camarda, et al., 2018). The present study reports on data collected at the 25-year (24.6 ± 0.19 years, mean ± SE) follow-up (ClinicalTrials Identification Number NCT03862482), focusing specifically on the evaluation and comparison of the effects on peri-implant healing and functional osseointegration of the two different machined collar designs. That is to say, the identical shorter, wider, external-connection Brånemark® and Swede-Vent® collars versus the longer, narrower, internal-connection Screw-Vent® collar. Twenty-two of the original participants (41.5%, age 71.1 ± 1.2 years, 11 women, 110 implants) were enrolled into this study. All study procedures were performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments, and all participants signed informed consent documents prior to inclusion into this study.

Enrollment

22 patients

Sex

All

Ages

48 to 82 years old

Volunteers

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* non-smoker * no temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder or facial pain * having participated in the original study (1993 - 1996) at which time the minimum participants' age was 25 years and the maximum 56 years

Exclusion criteria

* refusal to sign informed consent documents

Trial design

Primary purpose

Treatment

Allocation

Randomized

Interventional model

Parallel Assignment

Masking

Triple Blind

22 participants in 3 patient groups

Brånemark® 2, Swede-Vent® 2, Screw-Vent® 1 (Configuration 1)
Active Comparator group
Description:
Device placement: B (Brånemark® dental implant) placed at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent® dental implant) placed at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent® dental implant) placed at one site
Treatment:
Device: Brånemark® 2, Swede-Vent® 2, Screw-Vent® 1 (Configuration 1)
Brånemark® 1, Swede-Vent® 2, Screw-Vent® 2 (Configuration 2)
Experimental group
Description:
Device placement: B (Brånemark® dental implant) placed at one site, SW (Swede-Vent® dental implant) placed at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent® dental implant) placed at two sites
Treatment:
Device: Brånemark® 1, Swede-Vent® 2, Screw-Vent® 2 (Configuration 2)
Brånemark® 2, Swede-Vent® 1, Screw-Vent® 2 (Configuration 3)
Experimental group
Description:
Device placement: B (Brånemark® dental implant) placed at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent® dental implant) placed at one site, SC (Screw-Vent® dental implant) placed at two sites
Treatment:
Device: Brånemark® 2, Swede-Vent® 1, Screw-Vent® 2 (Configuration 3)

Trial documents
1

Trial contacts and locations

1

Loading...

Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov

Clinical trials

Find clinical trialsTrials by location
© Copyright 2024 Veeva Systems