Edentulous Alveolar RidgeLOCNCT02380404
Effectiveness of Removable Prosthesis Retained by 4 Implant-supported Locator-Attachments
An observational study of Edentulous Alveolar Ridge, run by University of Liege at 2 sites in Belgium.
Trial summary
1. Hypothesis/Specific aims The aim of the present study proposal is to validate an implant treatment concept in the edentulous upper maxilla using four implants-supported locators abutments to retain removable prosthesis. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Edentulous Alveolar Ridge
- What is being tested?
- Implants-supported locators placement
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesBelgium
- Study dates
- 2 Apr 2014to Nov 2020
- How long will I take part?
- 5 Years
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients from the Department of Periodontology and Oral Surgery, CHU of Liège
Who may be able to join
- Physical status according to ASA = 1, 2
- Wearing a complete upper denture that is adequate and in good conditions
- Signed informed consent form describing the purpose and process of the study
Who cannot join
- Uncontrolled periodontitis/peri-implantitis (lower jaw)
- Lack of bone for the placement of 4 implants of 3.3 diameter and 8 mm with bone regeneration.
- Tobacco use > 10cigarettes/day
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Belgium2 sites
Hospital University of Liège (CHU-Ulg)
Liège, 4000
University Hospital of Liege
Liège, 4000
About this study
Official title: Clinical Outcomes of a Cost-effective Implant Treatment in the Edentulous Upper Maxilla: Effectiveness of Removable Prosthesis Retained by 4 Implant-supported Locator-Attachments.
- Hypothesis/Specific aims
The aim of the present study proposal is to validate an implant treatment concept in the edentulous upper maxilla using four implants-supported locators abutments to retain removable prosthesis.
Read more
Specific aims:
- The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the implant and prosthodontics success rates of the proposed implant treatment approach after a follow-up period of 1, 3 and 5 years as well as the biological and prosthodontics complications.
- The secondary objective is to assess the evolution of patient centered outcomes with the suggested treatment in the maxilla. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patients' satisfaction relating to their prostheses will be considered.
- The third objective will be to compare the implant, prosthodontics and patient-centered outcomes according to the implant distribution; 4 anterior to maxillary sinus (ANT) versus 2 anterior implants and 2 implants in the maxillary tuberosity (POST).
Hypothesis:
- Implant survival rate using this treatment concept is similar to restoration with implant-supported fixed prosthesis, based on published data. No difference of implant survival rates is found between ANT and POST implant distribution.
- Prosthodontics survival rate using the following treatment concept is similar to the ones found with a bar, based on published data. The ANT implant distribution causes fewer prosthodontics complications compared to the POST implant distribution.
- There is a significant improvement in OHRQoL and patient satisfaction compared to the baseline OHRQoL observed with a conventional removable denture. The levels of improvement OHRQoL and patient satisfaction are similar for ANT and POST implant distributions.
Read the detailed description
1.1 Background and significance
The effectiveness of mandibular overdentures retained by 2 dental implants and its impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction has been extensively documented over the last decades(1-6). According to recent systematic reviews, the implant survival rate of this oral rehabilitation concept reaches more than 95% (7-10). The scientific validation of the efficacy of such a rehabilitation concept has influenced the social security system of several countries like Belgium. Therefore, this treatment approach is nowadays considered as an evidence-based and cost-effective treatment option improving the function and quality of life of mandibular edentulous patients. Unfortunately, cost-effective treatment concept to restore the edentulous maxilla not has been widely documented (11). Many studies display high success rates of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations of the edentulous maxilla (12) but these treatment options remain costly and are therefore reserved to a limited social category of patients.
This work is important because there is a need to provide affordable and efficient implant treatment approaches to restore function and improve satisfaction and OHRQoL of patients with edentulous maxillae.
1.2 Preliminary studies in connection with new projects/continuing projects
Even though some authors have described implant survival rates of implant-retained overdentures in the upper maxilla (8, 13-16), most of the treatment approaches involves bars. The placement of 4 implants and individual attachments is a more cost-effective treatment modality that is poorly documented in the literature in terms of implants and prosthodontics outcomes but also on aspects assessing implant distribution, attachment types and improvement of patient centered outcomes. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the placement of 4 implants and individual attachment as a reliable treatment modality.
1.3 Research design and methods
The study is designed as a single center prospective cohort study. The study protocol will be submitted to the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of the University of Liège, Belgium.
A total of 30 patients with edentulous maxillae and at least one short span dentition (fixed) in the lower jaw will be included in the study.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed below:
Inclusion criteria
- Physical status according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) = 1, 2
- Wearing a complete upper denture that is adequate and in good conditions
- Signed informed consent form describing the purpose and process of the study
Exclusion criteria
- Uncontrolled periodontitis/peri-implantitis (lower jaw)
- Lack of bone for the placement of 4 implants of 3.3 diameter and 8 mm with bone regeneration.
- Tobacco use > 10cigarettes/day
Pre-treatment examination Clinical evaluation of the upper removable denture and the lower dentition will be done. Oral hygiene instructions will be given.
The patient fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be asked to complete 3 questionnaires for patient satisfaction and OHRQoL and socio-demographic conditions before explaining them the possibilities to be enrolled in a study in order to minimize the risk of bias.
The McGill Denture Satisfaction Instrument (17) will be used to evaluate patients' satisfaction relating to their prostheses. This questionnaire is a treatment-specific patient-based outcome assessing satisfaction relating to 6 aspects of the mandibular prosthesis: general satisfaction, comfort, stability, aesthetics, chewing ability (ease of chewing), chewing efficiency (ability to crush food in small particles), ease of cleaning, ability to speak and oral condition (condition of their mouth, which can refer to oral health status and was measured by "In general, are you satisfied with your oral condition?". The subjects will answer on 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS) anchored by the words "not at all satisfied" and "extremely satisfied".
The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) questionnaire will be used to assess oral health-related quality of life. This 20-item questionnaire measures self-reported impairment in edentulous populations within seven domains: functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap. The items will be rated on six-point Likert scales ("never" = 1, "rarely" = 2, "occasionally" = 3, "often" = 4, "very often" = 5 or "all of the time" = 6). OHIP-20s total range is therefore 20-120 points, lower scores indicating better oral health-related quality of life (4, 18, 19).
Data on gender, age, level of education, annual household revenue, marital status and lifestyle (living alone or with others) will be obtained from a standard socio-demographic questionnaire.
Cone beam CT s assessment After the informed consent is signed, a CT scan will be done and evaluated by 2 independent surgeons to potentially exclude some patients because of lack of bone availability. In case of disagreement, the case will be discussed.
Surgical procedures Once all patients have been enrolled in the study, the surgeries will be scheduled within the same week. Antibiotics will be prescribed 1 day before surgery and continued for 5 days. Three calibrated and confirmed surgeons will place 4 Narrow Neck (NN) or Regular Neck (RN) Roxolid tissue level implants (Institut Straumann, Basel Switzerland) according to the surgical protocol recommended by the manufacturer. The implant positions have to be determined previously at the time of CT scan evaluation by an agreement between the 2 operators and according to the bone availability. Two implants have to be placed in the lateral or canine region and 2 implants as distal as possible. The implants have to be placed with as parallels as possible. A maximum divergence of 10 will be tolerated. The flap design will be determined according to the available bone quantity and in order to emphasize an adequate quantity of keratinized tissue around the implants. A Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scan will be done directly after surgery. Sutures will be performed with silk sutures and removed after 1 week. The removable (conventional) prostheses will be adapted to avoid any contact with the implants. Patients will be followed up at 4 and 8 weeks post-surgery, respectively. At 8 weeks, a panoramic x-ray will be done. If osseointegration is successful, the removable prostheses will be connected to the implants.
Prosthodontics procedures At 8 weeks, prosthesis will be connected to the implant with Locator . The type of Locator attachments will be chosen according to the implant angulation and soft tissue thickness. They will be torqued at 35 N/cm on the osseointegrated implants. Afterwards, the female connection will be fixed into the removable prosthesis with acrylic resin. The effectiveness of retention will be checked and the patient will be taught to put the denture in and out by himself. The occlusion will be controlled and adjusted after these manipulations if necessary.
Follow-up visits Patient will be followed at 1 week after Locator connections and then at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Thereafter, patients were recalled annually. In case of any complications, the patient will be asked to directly contact one of the dentists responsible for the study.
Data collection Data will be collected into a remote and secured database. Automatic data check procedures will be implemented at data entry to warrant quality of the information stored. Access to the database will be limited to the study investigators and data will be kept confidential.
Statistical analyses Results will be summarized as mean and standard deviation (SD) for quantitative variables and as frequency tables for categorical findings at each time point. Longitudinal data will be displayed graphically and analyzed by the general linear mixed model which accounts for repeated values within patients. Success rates will be estimated and associated with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The significance level will be set at 5% (P<0.05). Data will be analyzed with Statistical Analyses Software (SAS and S-PLUS softwares).
- Conditions
- Edentulous Alveolar Ridge
- Being tested
- Implants-supported locators placement
- Keywords
- Edentulous maxilla
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Implants-supported locators placementProcedure or surgery
Also called Locators abutments, NN or RN Roxolid tissue level implants
Antibiotics will be prescribed 1 day before surgery and continued for 5 days. Three calibrated surgeons will place 4 NN or RN Roxolid tissue level implants. Two implants have to be placed in the ANT region (lateral or canine) and 2 implants in the POST region (as distal as possible). Angulated implant and placement of implant in the tuberosity region can be considered.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Edentulous maxilla | Ibuprofen (600 mg - Film-coated Tablets) 3x/day before the surgery. Duration : 5 days Amoxicilline Teva (500 mg - dispersible tablets) 3x/day before the surgery. Duration : 16 days Receives: Procedure: Implants-supported locators placement |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Implant outcomes
At each follow-up visit (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years), a clinical exam including plaque assessment, bleeding on probing and mucosal palpation will be done. A CBCT scan will be done directly after surgery and at one year post-surgery. Specifically, the integration will be considered successful if the following parameters are met: (1) absence of recurring peri-implant infection with suppuration; (2) absence of persistent subjective complaints such as pain, foreign body sensation, and/or dysesthesia; (3) absence of a continuous radiolucency around the implant; and (4) absence of any detectable implant mobility. Marginal bone levels will be measured using CBCT radiograph at baseline and 1, 3 and 5 years follow-up, using the implant neck as reference point and calibrating them using Image J64. Marginal bone remodeling will be calculated accordingly. CBCT radiographs will be taken using the bisector technique.
Measured: 5 years
Secondary outcomes (1)
Prosthodontics success rates
At each follow-up visit (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years), the proper adaptation of the prosthesis, the retention of attachments and the mastication aptitude will be verified. A fracture of the Locator attachments will be considered as a prosthodontics failure and will directly influence the prosthodontics success rates. The possible prosthodontics complications, such as base fracture, attachment loss (unscrewing, or discementation) and loss of retention, will be recorded as prosthodontics complications and managed appropriately.
Measured: 5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Mar 2015 (estimated)
- Study start2 Apr 2014
- Primary completionMar 2016
- Study completionNov 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (18)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Edentulous Alveolar RidgeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 5 Years
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Liege
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Université de Liège, ITI International Team for Implantology, Switzerland, Institut Straumann AG
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. France LAMBERT, University of Liege
- Investigators
- France Lambert, Principal investigator, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liege
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02380404
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 958_2013
- Acronym
- LOC
- Status last verified
- May 2022
- First submitted
- 6 Mar 2014
- Last updated
- 19 May 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Assuncao WG, Barao VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology. 2010 Jun;27(2):154-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00299.x. Epub 2009 May 6.
PubMed 19467020Awad MA, Locker D, Korner-Bitensky N, Feine JS. Measuring the effect of intra-oral implant rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res. 2000 Sep;79(9):1659-63. doi: 10.1177/00220345000790090401.
PubMed 11023260Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):117-22.
PubMed 12737240Awad MA, Rashid F, Feine JS; Overdenture Effectiveness Study Team Consortium. The effect of mandibular 2-implant overdentures on oral health-related quality of life: an international multicentre study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jan;25(1):46-51. doi: 10.1111/clr.12205. Epub 2013 Jun 4.
PubMed 23735197Heydecke G, Penrod JR, Takanashi Y, Lund JP, Feine JS, Thomason JM. Cost-effectiveness of mandibular two-implant overdentures and conventional dentures in the edentulous elderly. J Dent Res. 2005 Sep;84(9):794-9. doi: 10.1177/154405910508400903.
PubMed 16109986Wismeijer D, Tawse-Smith A, Payne AG. Multicentre prospective evaluation of implant-assisted mandibular bilateral distal extension removable partial dentures: patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):20-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02367.x. Epub 2011 Nov 24.
PubMed 22111809Batenburg RH, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998 Jul-Aug;13(4):539-45.
PubMed 9714961Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of implant-supported maxillary overdentures after a mean observation period of at least 1 year. J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Jan;37(1):98-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01493.x. Epub 2009 Dec 7.
PubMed 19995402de Lange J, van Gool AV, Stoker G, Wismeijer D, van Waas R. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of aftercare and cost-analysis with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res. 2007 Oct;86(10):920; author reply 920-1. doi: 10.1177/154405910708601003. No abstract available.
PubMed 17890666Stoker G, van Waas R, Wismeijer D. Long-term outcomes of three types of implant-supported mandibular overdentures in smokers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Aug;23(8):925-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02237.x. Epub 2011 Jul 4.
PubMed 21722193Zembic A, Wismeijer D. Patient-reported outcomes of maxillary implant-supported overdentures compared with conventional dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Apr;25(4):441-50. doi: 10.1111/clr.12169. Epub 2013 Apr 15.
PubMed 23581398Lambert FE, Weber HP, Susarla SM, Belser UC, Gallucci GO. Descriptive analysis of implant and prosthodontic survival rates with fixed implant-supported rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. J Periodontol. 2009 Aug;80(8):1220-30. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.090109.
PubMed 19656021Laurito D, Lamazza L, Spink MJ, De Biase A. Tissue-supported dental implant prosthesis (overdenture): the search for the ideal protocol. A literature review. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2012 Jan;3(1):2-10. Epub 2012 May 3.
PubMed 22783448Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Maxillary overdentures supported by anteriorly or posteriorly placed implants opposed by a natural dentition in the mandible: a 1-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Feb;16(1):51-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00459.x. Epub 2012 May 11.
PubMed 22577941Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. A comparison between 4 and 6 implants in the maxillary posterior region to support an overdenture; 1-year results from a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 May;25(5):560-6. doi: 10.1111/clr.12118. Epub 2013 Feb 13.
PubMed 23406268
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 May 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Outcomes of a Cost-effective Implant Treatment in the Edentulous Upper Maxilla: Effectiveness of Removable Prosthesis Retained by 4 Implant-supported Locator-Attachments.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02380404
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- LOC / 958_2013
- Conditions
- Edentulous Alveolar Ridge
- Keywords
- Edentulous maxilla
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LiegeUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Université de Liège, ITI International Team for Implantology, Switzerland, Institut Straumann AG
- Study start
- 2 Apr 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Mar 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Nov 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Mar 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
- Hypothesis/Specific aims
The aim of the present study proposal is to validate an implant treatment concept in the edentulous upper maxilla using four implants-supported locators abutments to retain removable prosthesis.
Specific aims:
- The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the implant and prosthodontics success rates of the proposed implant treatment approach after a follow-up period of 1, 3 and 5 years as well as the biological and prosthodontics complications.
- The secondary objective is to assess the evolution of patient centered outcomes with the suggested treatment in the maxilla. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and patients' satisfaction relating to their prostheses will be considered.
- The third objective will be to compare the implant, prosthodontics and patient-centered outcomes according to the implant distribution; 4 anterior to maxillary sinus (ANT) versus 2 anterior implants and 2 implants in the maxillary tuberosity (POST).
Hypothesis:
- Implant survival rate using this treatment concept is similar to restoration with implant-supported fixed prosthesis, based on published data. No difference of implant survival rates is found between ANT and POST implant distribution.
- Prosthodontics survival rate using the following treatment concept is similar to the ones found with a bar, based on published data. The ANT implant distribution causes fewer prosthodontics complications compared to the POST implant distribution.
- There is a significant improvement in OHRQoL and patient satisfaction compared to the baseline OHRQoL observed with a conventional removable denture. The levels of improvement OHRQoL and patient satisfaction are similar for ANT and POST implant distributions.
Detailed description
1.1 Background and significance
The effectiveness of mandibular overdentures retained by 2 dental implants and its impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) and patient satisfaction has been extensively documented over the last decades(1-6). According to recent systematic reviews, the implant survival rate of this oral rehabilitation concept reaches more than 95% (7-10). The scientific validation of the efficacy of such a rehabilitation concept has influenced the social security system of several countries like Belgium. Therefore, this treatment approach is nowadays considered as an evidence-based and cost-effective treatment option improving the function and quality of life of mandibular edentulous patients. Unfortunately, cost-effective treatment concept to restore the edentulous maxilla not has been widely documented (11). Many studies display high success rates of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations of the edentulous maxilla (12) but these treatment options remain costly and are therefore reserved to a limited social category of patients.
This work is important because there is a need to provide affordable and efficient implant treatment approaches to restore function and improve satisfaction and OHRQoL of patients with edentulous maxillae.
1.2 Preliminary studies in connection with new projects/continuing projects
Even though some authors have described implant survival rates of implant-retained overdentures in the upper maxilla (8, 13-16), most of the treatment approaches involves bars. The placement of 4 implants and individual attachments is a more cost-effective treatment modality that is poorly documented in the literature in terms of implants and prosthodontics outcomes but also on aspects assessing implant distribution, attachment types and improvement of patient centered outcomes. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the placement of 4 implants and individual attachment as a reliable treatment modality.
1.3 Research design and methods
The study is designed as a single center prospective cohort study. The study protocol will be submitted to the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of the University of Liège, Belgium.
A total of 30 patients with edentulous maxillae and at least one short span dentition (fixed) in the lower jaw will be included in the study.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed below:
Inclusion criteria
- Physical status according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) = 1, 2
- Wearing a complete upper denture that is adequate and in good conditions
- Signed informed consent form describing the purpose and process of the study
Exclusion criteria
- Uncontrolled periodontitis/peri-implantitis (lower jaw)
- Lack of bone for the placement of 4 implants of 3.3 diameter and 8 mm with bone regeneration.
- Tobacco use > 10cigarettes/day
Pre-treatment examination Clinical evaluation of the upper removable denture and the lower dentition will be done. Oral hygiene instructions will be given.
The patient fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be asked to complete 3 questionnaires for patient satisfaction and OHRQoL and socio-demographic conditions before explaining them the possibilities to be enrolled in a study in order to minimize the risk of bias.
The McGill Denture Satisfaction Instrument (17) will be used to evaluate patients' satisfaction relating to their prostheses. This questionnaire is a treatment-specific patient-based outcome assessing satisfaction relating to 6 aspects of the mandibular prosthesis: general satisfaction, comfort, stability, aesthetics, chewing ability (ease of chewing), chewing efficiency (ability to crush food in small particles), ease of cleaning, ability to speak and oral condition (condition of their mouth, which can refer to oral health status and was measured by "In general, are you satisfied with your oral condition?". The subjects will answer on 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS) anchored by the words "not at all satisfied" and "extremely satisfied".
The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) questionnaire will be used to assess oral health-related quality of life. This 20-item questionnaire measures self-reported impairment in edentulous populations within seven domains: functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap. The items will be rated on six-point Likert scales ("never" = 1, "rarely" = 2, "occasionally" = 3, "often" = 4, "very often" = 5 or "all of the time" = 6). OHIP-20s total range is therefore 20-120 points, lower scores indicating better oral health-related quality of life (4, 18, 19).
Data on gender, age, level of education, annual household revenue, marital status and lifestyle (living alone or with others) will be obtained from a standard socio-demographic questionnaire.
Cone beam CT s assessment After the informed consent is signed, a CT scan will be done and evaluated by 2 independent surgeons to potentially exclude some patients because of lack of bone availability. In case of disagreement, the case will be discussed.
Surgical procedures Once all patients have been enrolled in the study, the surgeries will be scheduled within the same week. Antibiotics will be prescribed 1 day before surgery and continued for 5 days. Three calibrated and confirmed surgeons will place 4 Narrow Neck (NN) or Regular Neck (RN) Roxolid tissue level implants (Institut Straumann, Basel Switzerland) according to the surgical protocol recommended by the manufacturer. The implant positions have to be determined previously at the time of CT scan evaluation by an agreement between the 2 operators and according to the bone availability. Two implants have to be placed in the lateral or canine region and 2 implants as distal as possible. The implants have to be placed with as parallels as possible. A maximum divergence of 10 will be tolerated. The flap design will be determined according to the available bone quantity and in order to emphasize an adequate quantity of keratinized tissue around the implants. A Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scan will be done directly after surgery. Sutures will be performed with silk sutures and removed after 1 week. The removable (conventional) prostheses will be adapted to avoid any contact with the implants. Patients will be followed up at 4 and 8 weeks post-surgery, respectively. At 8 weeks, a panoramic x-ray will be done. If osseointegration is successful, the removable prostheses will be connected to the implants.
Prosthodontics procedures At 8 weeks, prosthesis will be connected to the implant with Locator . The type of Locator attachments will be chosen according to the implant angulation and soft tissue thickness. They will be torqued at 35 N/cm on the osseointegrated implants. Afterwards, the female connection will be fixed into the removable prosthesis with acrylic resin. The effectiveness of retention will be checked and the patient will be taught to put the denture in and out by himself. The occlusion will be controlled and adjusted after these manipulations if necessary.
Follow-up visits Patient will be followed at 1 week after Locator connections and then at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Thereafter, patients were recalled annually. In case of any complications, the patient will be asked to directly contact one of the dentists responsible for the study.
Data collection Data will be collected into a remote and secured database. Automatic data check procedures will be implemented at data entry to warrant quality of the information stored. Access to the database will be limited to the study investigators and data will be kept confidential.
Statistical analyses Results will be summarized as mean and standard deviation (SD) for quantitative variables and as frequency tables for categorical findings at each time point. Longitudinal data will be displayed graphically and analyzed by the general linear mixed model which accounts for repeated values within patients. Success rates will be estimated and associated with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The significance level will be set at 5% (P<0.05). Data will be analyzed with Statistical Analyses Software (SAS and S-PLUS softwares).
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 5 Years
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Edentulous maxilla | – | Procedure: Implants-supported locators placementIbuprofen (600 mg - Film-coated Tablets) 3x/day before the surgery. Duration : 5 days Amoxicilline Teva (500 mg - dispersible tablets) 3x/day before the surgery. Duration : 16 days |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients from the Department of Periodontology and Oral Surgery, CHU of Liège
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Physical status according to ASA = 1, 2
- Wearing a complete upper denture that is adequate and in good conditions
- Signed informed consent form describing the purpose and process of the study
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Uncontrolled periodontitis/peri-implantitis (lower jaw)
- Lack of bone for the placement of 4 implants of 3.3 diameter and 8 mm with bone regeneration.
- Tobacco use > 10cigarettes/day
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Implants-supported locators placementAlso: Locators abutments, NN or RN Roxolid tissue level implantsAntibiotics will be prescribed 1 day before surgery and continued for 5 days. Three calibrated surgeons will place 4 NN or RN Roxolid tissue level implants. Two implants have to be placed in the ANT region (lateral or canine) and 2 implants in the POST region (as distal as possible). Angulated implant and placement of implant in the tuberosity region can be considered. | Procedure or surgery | Edentulous maxilla |
Primary outcome
Implant outcomes
Time frame: 5 years
At each follow-up visit (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years), a clinical exam including plaque assessment, bleeding on probing and mucosal palpation will be done. A CBCT scan will be done directly after surgery and at one year post-surgery. Specifically, the integration will be considered successful if the following parameters are met: (1) absence of recurring peri-implant infection with suppuration; (2) absence of persistent subjective complaints such as pain, foreign body sensation, and/or dysesthesia; (3) absence of a continuous radiolucency around the implant; and (4) absence of any detectable implant mobility. Marginal bone levels will be measured using CBCT radiograph at baseline and 1, 3 and 5 years follow-up, using the implant neck as reference point and calibrating them using Image J64. Marginal bone remodeling will be calculated accordingly. CBCT radiographs will be taken using the bisector technique.
1 secondary outcome
Prosthodontics success rates
Time frame: 5 years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 May 2022.
- Background: PubMed 19467020Assuncao WG, Barao VA, Delben JA, Gomes EA, Tabata LF. A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review. Gerodontology. 2010 Jun;27(2):154-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00299.x. Epub 2009 May 6.
- Background: PubMed 11023260Awad MA, Locker D, Korner-Bitensky N, Feine JS. Measuring the effect of intra-oral implant rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res. 2000 Sep;79(9):1659-63. doi: 10.1177/00220345000790090401.
- Background: PubMed 12737240Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):117-22.
- Background: PubMed 23735197Awad MA, Rashid F, Feine JS; Overdenture Effectiveness Study Team Consortium. The effect of mandibular 2-implant overdentures on oral health-related quality of life: an international multicentre study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jan;25(1):46-51. doi: 10.1111/clr.12205. Epub 2013 Jun 4.
- Background: PubMed 16109986Heydecke G, Penrod JR, Takanashi Y, Lund JP, Feine JS, Thomason JM. Cost-effectiveness of mandibular two-implant overdentures and conventional dentures in the edentulous elderly. J Dent Res. 2005 Sep;84(9):794-9. doi: 10.1177/154405910508400903.
- Background: PubMed 22111809Wismeijer D, Tawse-Smith A, Payne AG. Multicentre prospective evaluation of implant-assisted mandibular bilateral distal extension removable partial dentures: patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):20-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02367.x. Epub 2011 Nov 24.
- Background: PubMed 9714961Batenburg RH, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998 Jul-Aug;13(4):539-45.
- Background: PubMed 19995402Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of implant-supported maxillary overdentures after a mean observation period of at least 1 year. J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Jan;37(1):98-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01493.x. Epub 2009 Dec 7.
- Background: PubMed 17890666de Lange J, van Gool AV, Stoker G, Wismeijer D, van Waas R. An eight-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of aftercare and cost-analysis with three types of mandibular implant-retained overdentures. J Dent Res. 2007 Oct;86(10):920; author reply 920-1. doi: 10.1177/154405910708601003. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 21722193Stoker G, van Waas R, Wismeijer D. Long-term outcomes of three types of implant-supported mandibular overdentures in smokers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Aug;23(8):925-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02237.x. Epub 2011 Jul 4.
- Background: PubMed 23581398Zembic A, Wismeijer D. Patient-reported outcomes of maxillary implant-supported overdentures compared with conventional dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Apr;25(4):441-50. doi: 10.1111/clr.12169. Epub 2013 Apr 15.
- Background: PubMed 19656021Lambert FE, Weber HP, Susarla SM, Belser UC, Gallucci GO. Descriptive analysis of implant and prosthodontic survival rates with fixed implant-supported rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. J Periodontol. 2009 Aug;80(8):1220-30. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.090109.
Related trials for Edentulous Alveolar Ridge
Active, not recruiting
L-PRF Block vs Composite Graft for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation
Alveolar Ridge Resorption After Extraction, Alveolar Bone Loss
Recruiting
Two Bovine Xenografts in Lateral Window Sinus Augmentation With or Without Bone Marrow Blood
Alveolar Bone Loss, Sinus Floor Augmentation
Not yet recruiting
Clinical and Radiographic Comparison of Two Implant-Abutment Connections
Dental Implant, Edentulous Alveolar Ridge
Active, not recruiting
Osseodensification for Narrow Alveolar Ridge Expansion
Osseodensification, Bone Expansion
Recruiting
Two-piece Zirconia Implants With Two Various Platforms
Edentulous Alveolar Ridge
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
France Lambert principal investigator
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liege
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Edentulous Alveolar Ridge, run by University of Liege at 2 sites in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 May 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Implant outcomes (time frame: 5 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02380404, which also lists 18 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 May 2022.