Stability of Short Implants Versus Standard Blx Implants With Internal Sinus Floor Elevation in Posterior Maxilla

Last updated: December 10, 2023
Sponsor: Cairo University
Overall Status: Active - Recruiting

Phase

N/A

Condition

Bone Density

Treatment

surgery

Clinical Study ID

NCT05779345
00
  • Ages 18-60
  • All Genders
  • Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Summary

Implants in the maxillary posterior region are associated with compromised bone in both quantity - notably in vertical dimension- and quality. Along with the fact that the posterior teeth are subjected to higher occlusal forces than the anterior teeth (Marianne Morand & Tassos Irinakis, 2007). In order to overcome these shortcomings, various procedures have been advocated including open and closed sinus lift (Nkenke E & Stelzle F, 2009; Schropp et al, 2003). The use of short implants is a valid alternative for these procedures (Wallace SS & Froum SJ, 2003) sparing the need of applying augmentation techniques with the associated increased time, morbidity and complexity of such procedures.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Single edentuolous site at maxillary posterior region
  • The available bone height below the maxillary sinus should be 7-8mm
  • Patients ≥ 20 years old
  • Bucco-palatal bone width should be ≥6mm
  • Adequate interarch space
  • Bounded, single

Exclusion

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with local pathological defects related to the area of interest.
  • Patients with habits that may jeopardize the implant longevity and affect the resultsof the study such as alcoholism or parafunctional habits.
  • Inadequate inter-arch space for implant prosthetic part
  • Smokers
  • pregnancy

Study Design

Total Participants: 42
Treatment Group(s): 1
Primary Treatment: surgery
Phase:
Study Start date:
March 02, 2023
Estimated Completion Date:
July 02, 2025

Study Description

To overcome anatomical and physiological limitations, different sinus augmentation techniques with immediate or delayed (6-8 months post augmentation) implant placement have been proposed. The most common one is the sinus elevation with a lateral window approach. Although these protocols evoke a high level of success in augmenting the bone quantity (Nkenke E & Stelzle F, 2009; Schropp et al, 2003) many patients refuse them because of the invasiveness of the augmentative procedure, with obvious prolonged healing times and increased morbidity and costs (Fugazzotto, 2003; Bra¨gger et al, 2004; Toffler, 2004). An alternative therapy for restoring areas of limited bone dimension is the placement of short implants (Wallace SS & Froum SJ, 2003). ''Standard length implants'' are those of 10 mm in length and have been defined as the minimal length for anticipated success (Griffin TJ & Cheung WS, 2004).

Connect with a study center

  • Cairo University

    Cairo, Greater Cairo 12613
    Egypt

    Active - Recruiting

Not the study for you?

Let us help you find the best match. Sign up as a volunteer and receive email notifications when clinical trials are posted in the medical category of interest to you.