Tooth LossNCT03538184
Molecular Content of Peri-implant Sulcus During Wound Healing and Osseointegration Following Drilling and Piezosurgery
A study testing Piezosurgery and Drill in people with Tooth Loss and Edentulous Jaw, run by Ege University.
Trial summary
This study aims to evaluate the levels of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) during healing and osseointegration at osteotomy sites prepared either with piezosurgery (PS) or drills (D). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 31 to 64 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Tooth Loss, Edentulous Jaw
- What is being tested?
- Piezosurgery and Drill
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 14 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- May 2013to Apr 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 31 to 64 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Bilateral partial edentulism in posterior maxilla
- >8 mm available bone height (distance between bone crest and maxillary sinus) and ≥7 mm bone width
- At least 2 mm buccal keratinized mucosa width and 3 mm mucosa thickness.
Who cannot join
- Diseases and conditions or medications which may negatively influence biological dynamics of bone and wound healing
- Ridge deficiencies requiring additional augmentation
- Indication of sinus lifting with crestal or lateral approach
- Endodontic or periodontal lesions neighbouring the edentulous sites were anatomic exclusion criteria
About this study
Official title: Cytokine, Chemokine and Growth Factor Content of Peri-implant Sulcus During Wound Healing and Osseointegration After Conventional and Piezosurgical Implant Site Preparation
This study aims to evaluate the levels of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) during healing and osseointegration at osteotomy sites prepared either with piezosurgery (PS) or drills (D). Fourteen patients having bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla were enrolled and 38 osteotomies were prepared. Implants were placed with one-stage surgery. Insertion torque, early healing index, probing depth and modified gingival and plaque indices and crestal bone (CB) loss were measured. PISF was collected from 4 sites from each implant at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24. PISF samples were analysed by a 30-Plex immunoassay. Effect of time and osteotomy method on molecules employed Brunner-Langer method.
Read the detailed description
Surgical procedures Fourteen patients received 38 bone-level implants (4.1 mm diameter and 8 mm, 10 mm or 12 mm in length, Biodenta®, Bone Level Implant, Biodenta Swiss AG, Switzerland) Osteotomies were prepared with drills (drill group, control, n=19) on one side and with PS tips (piezosurgery group; test, n=19) on the contralateral side in a single session. Surgical, pre- and post-operative procedures were carried out as was previously described. Briefly, right side was always the first operated site where the osteotomies were prepared with one of the randomly selected methods. Toss of a coin at the beginning of the surgery by an independent examiner designated the random allocation and modality to be used on the right side of the patient. Left side received the other osteotomy modality. First a midcrestal incision was made and full-thickness flap was raised. Osteotomies were prepared in the drill group by marking the appropriate point with a trispade drill and then advancing the 2.0 mm pilot drill to the planned depth followed by 2.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 3.5 mm drills, respectively. In PS group osteotomies were prepared with PS device (Piezonmaster®, EMS SA, Switzerland) and its relevant tips (Swiss Instruments Surgery, Implant System, Switzerland). Initial tip with a 1.15 mm diameter was used along the predetermined depth to create a pilot osteotomy. Then the osteotomy was widened to a final diameter of 3.5 mm by using 1.95 mm, 2.5 mm, 2.8 mm, 3.05 mm and 3.3 mm tips, respectively. Intermediate and final diameters, depth and direction of the osteotomies were controlled in both groups with drill try-ins, which also function as paralleling pins. Bone taps or crestal drills were not used for final contouring in both groups. Then 4.1 mm-diameter implants were placed equicrestally by a handpiece at a speed of 15 rpm in both groups and insertion torque was recorded. Following transfer abutment removal, 4.0 mm diameter straight healing abutments were connected for non-submerged healing and flaps were stabilized with 5.0 polypropylene interrupted sutures. Patients were instructed to rinse with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate for 2 weeks and to abstain from brushing the surgery site for this period and not to chew on the healing abutments. They were prescribed 200 mg ibuprofen t.i.d for 1 week. The sutures were removed at 2nd week following the surgery.
Clinical and radiological procedures A single examiner performed clinical measurements. Modified gingival (MGI) and plaque indices (MPI) were taken on weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 from 4 points around each implant with a plastic probe (UNC 12 Colorvue probe, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL). Probing depth (PD) was measured on weeks 12 and 24 following surgery with the same probe type (Figure 3). Repeatability of the examiner for PD measurements was κw=0.88. Flap closure and its continuity were evaluated on days 7 and 14 by early healing index (EHI), which had been originally described for postoperative monitoring of regenerative procedures for intrabony defects.
Crestal bone level measurements were performed as previously described. In brief, radiographic images were obtained by cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) (Kodak 9000 3D, Practice Works, Inc., Atlanta, USA) on the day of surgery and at week 24. Standardized periapical radiographs were obtained at week 12 using a photostimulable phosphor plate with position holders (Rinn XCP, Dentsply International) and the long-cone paralleling technique. Images were digitalized by a photostimulable phosphor plate scanner (Digora® Optime, Soredex, USA).
CB levels on radiographic images were measured with a Java-based software (Image-J 3.0, NIH, Bethesda, USA) by a masked and calibrated examiner (GPT; Cronbach's alpha=0.99). Implant shoulder (IS), first bone to implant contact (fBIC), implant abutment interface and apex of the implant were used as reference points. Mean of triple measurements rounded to the nearest 0.01 mm were used. CB loss was recorded by measuring the IS-fBIC distance on periapical radiograms at week 12 and on CBCT sections at week 24.
Biochemical procedures Postoperative PISF samples were obtained from 4 aspects of implants on weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24. Sites were isolated by cotton rolls and visible supramucosal plaque was removed from healing abutment surfaces with a fiber carbon curette before sampling. Following gentle air-drying, paper strips (Periopaper, ProFlow, Amityville, NY, USA) were inserted 1 mm into the crevice and left in place for 30 s. Care was taken to avoid mechanical injury. The PISF volume absorbed on each strip was then determined by means of an electronic impedance device (Periotron 8000, ProFlow, Inc., Amityville, NY, USA), and all four were pooled into a sterile polypropylene tube which was previously coded to ensure masking of the laboratory technician and kept at -40C until analysed. The readings from the Periotron 8000 were converted to volume (µl) by reference to the standard curve. The collected PISF samples were eluted in 450 µl phosphate buffer saline (PBS, pH 7.2) in the presence of EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail ( Roche Applied Science, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and centrifuged at 2000 x g for 15 min, at 4C. The levels of the molecules under investigation in the eluted PISF samples were determined by the cytokine human magnetic 30-Plex panel (Novex®, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) consisting of cytokines (G-CSF, GM-CSF, IFNα, IFNγ, IL1β, IL1RA, IL2, IL2R, IL4, IL5, IL6, IL7, IL8, IL10, IL12 (p40/p70), IL13, IL15, IL17, TNFα), chemokines (Eotaxin, CXCL10, MCP1, MIG, MIP1α, MIP1β, RANTES) and growth factors (EGF, FGF-basic, HGF, VEGF), on the Luminex®200 platform. Bead fluorescence readings were done by Luminex®200 and analyzed using a software (xPONENT®, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
Data analysis A statistician who was blinded to the groups performed data analysis using non-parametrical methods. Implants were used as the unit of analysis. Clinical and radiological parameters served as primary outcome variables.The secondary outcome variable was selected as cytokine, chemokine and growth factor levels. Both primary and secondary outcomes were tested with Brunner and Langer method LDF2 model using a software (R software, version 3.3.1, package: nparLD, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; r-project.org). The following hypothesis was tested: "Changes in PISF cytokine, chemokine and growth factor levels are dependent on preparation method of osteotomy (piezosurgery vs drilling) and time after surgery".
Week 2 values of RANTES in study groups were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. RANTES values of groups at weeks 4, 8, 12 and 24 which were calculated as the difference from week 2 values were compared with Bonferroni corrected Mann-Whitney U test. EHI scores were compared with McNemar-Bowker chi-square test. Examiner calibration was assessed by weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient methods for PD and radiological CB loss measurements, respectively with a statistical software (SPSS 20.0, SPSS for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).
Significance level was set at 5% for all analyses. Required sample size was calculated using a software28 (G*Power 3.1, version 3.1.9.2) estimating a power of 80%, p-value of 5% in study groups for one-tailed test of matched pairs. Sample size calculation analysis suggested at least 18 implants for both groups.
- Conditions
- Tooth Loss, Edentulous Jaw
- Being tested
- Piezosurgery, Drill
- Medical subject headings
- Tooth Loss, Jaw, Edentulous
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PiezosurgeryProcedure or surgery
Preparation of implant beds entirely with piezo surgery implant tips
DrillProcedure or surgery
Preparation of implant beds entirely with conventional implant drills
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Piezosurgery | Experimental | Osteotomy preparation entirely with piezosurgery tips and equicrestal placement of a 4.1 mm implant in the piezosurgery (test) group were performed as follows: 1.15 mm initial MB1 tip, 1.95 mm MB2 tip, control of depth, diameter and direction of osteotomy with 2.0 mm paralleling pin, 2.5 mm MB3 tip, 2.8 mm MB4 tip, 2.8 mm paralleling pin, 3.05 mm MB5 tip, 3.3 mm MB6 tip, control of final diameter of the osteotomy with 3.5 mm paralleling pin, placement of the 4.1 mm diameter implant and connection of a 4 mm-wide healing abutment. Receives: Procedure: Piezosurgery |
| Drill | Active comparator | Preparation of an implant recipient site entirely with relevant drills were performed as follows: Osteotomy preparation and equicrestal placement of a 4.1 mm diameter implant in the drill (control) group were performed as follows: initial trispade drill, 2.0 mm pilot drill, control of depth, diameter and direction of osteotomy with 2.0 mm paralleling pin, 2.5 mm drill, 2.8 mm drill, 2.8 mm paralleling pin, 3.5 mm drill, control of final diameter of the osteotomy with 3.5 mm paralleling pin, placement of the 4.1 mm diameter implant and connection of a 4 mm wide healing abutment. Receives: Procedure: Drill |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Radiological bone levels at 12th and 24th weeks (Change from Baseline)
Bone Loss (measured distance from implant shoulder to first bone to implant contact on periodical radiographs and computerised cone beam tomography
Measured: Baseline (implant placement), 12th and 24th weeks after implant placement
Secondary outcomes (26)
IL-1beta content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
G.CSF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-13 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-6 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-12 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-17 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-15 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-5 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IFN gamma content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IFN alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-1Ra alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-2 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-7 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-2R alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-4 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-8 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
cytokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
RANTES alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
chemokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MIP-1alpha alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
chemokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MIP-1beta alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
chemokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MCP-1 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
chemokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MIG content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
chemokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IP-10 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
chemokine
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
FGF-b content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
growth factor
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
EGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
growth factor
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
HGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
growth factor
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
VEGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
growth factor
Measured: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 May 2018
- Study startMay 2013
- Primary completionFeb 2014
- Study completionApr 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Tooth LossStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Ege UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 14 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ege University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Gözde Peker Tekdal, Ege University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03538184
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- BAP 2013 Dent 009
- Status last verified
- May 2018
- First submitted
- 13 Apr 2018
- Last updated
- 29 May 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Jun;14(3):251-62. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00972.x.
PubMed 12755774Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Welander M, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Morphogenesis of the peri-implant mucosa: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Feb;18(1):1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01380.x.
PubMed 17224016Tomasi C, Tessarolo F, Caola I, Wennstrom J, Nollo G, Berglundh T. Morphogenesis of peri-implant mucosa revisited: an experimental study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Sep;25(9):997-1003. doi: 10.1111/clr.12223. Epub 2013 Jun 26.
PubMed 23799997Tomasi C, Tessarolo F, Caola I, Piccoli F, Wennstrom JL, Nollo G, Berglundh T. Early healing of peri-implant mucosa in man. J Clin Periodontol. 2016 Oct;43(10):816-24. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12591. Epub 2016 Jul 28.
PubMed 27329966Insua A, Monje A, Wang HL, Miron RJ. Basis of bone metabolism around dental implants during osseointegration and peri-implant bone loss. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Jul;105(7):2075-2089. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36060. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
PubMed 28281321Esteves JC, Marcantonio E Jr, de Souza Faloni AP, Rocha FR, Marcantonio RA, Wilk K, Intini G. Dynamics of bone healing after osteotomy with piezosurgery or conventional drilling - histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis. J Transl Med. 2013 Sep 23;11:221. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-221.
PubMed 24053147Preti G, Martinasso G, Peirone B, Navone R, Manzella C, Muzio G, Russo C, Canuto RA, Schierano G. Cytokines and growth factors involved in the osseointegration of oral titanium implants positioned using piezoelectric bone surgery versus a drill technique: a pilot study in minipigs. J Periodontol. 2007 Apr;78(4):716-22. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060285.
PubMed 17397320Peker Tekdal G, Bostanci N, Belibasakis GN, Gurkan A. The effect of piezoelectric surgery implant osteotomy on radiological and molecular parameters of peri-implant crestal bone loss: a randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May;27(5):535-44. doi: 10.1111/clr.12620. Epub 2015 Jun 16.
PubMed 26077862Bielemann AM, Marcello-Machado RM, Leite FRM, Martinho FC, Chagas-Junior OL, Antoninha Del Bel Cury A, Faot F. Comparison between inflammation-related markers in peri-implant crevicular fluid and clinical parameters during osseointegration in edentulous jaws. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):531-543. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2169-0. Epub 2017 Jul 14.
PubMed 28710652Chien HH, Meng HW, Gross AC, Eubank TD, Yildiz VO, Leblebicioglu B. The Effect of Platform Switching on Periimplant Crevicular Fluid Content During Early Wound Healing. Implant Dent. 2016 Oct;25(5):629-37. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000463.
PubMed 27504534Emecen-Huja P, Eubank TD, Shapiro V, Yildiz V, Tatakis DN, Leblebicioglu B. Peri-implant versus periodontal wound healing. J Clin Periodontol. 2013 Aug;40(8):816-24. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12127. Epub 2013 Jun 18.
PubMed 23772674Sculean A, Gruber R, Bosshardt DD. Soft tissue wound healing around teeth and dental implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S6-22. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12206.
PubMed 24641001
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 May 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Cytokine, Chemokine and Growth Factor Content of Peri-implant Sulcus During Wound Healing and Osseointegration After Conventional and Piezosurgical Implant Site Preparation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03538184
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BAP 2013 Dent 009
- Conditions
- Tooth Loss, Edentulous Jaw
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 14 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ege UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2013 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Feb 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Apr 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 May 2018 (actual)
- 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.
This study aims to evaluate the levels of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) during healing and osseointegration at osteotomy sites prepared either with piezosurgery (PS) or drills (D). Fourteen patients having bilateral partial edentulism in the posterior maxilla were enrolled and 38 osteotomies were prepared. Implants were placed with one-stage surgery. Insertion torque, early healing index, probing depth and modified gingival and plaque indices and crestal bone (CB) loss were measured. PISF was collected from 4 sites from each implant at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24. PISF samples were analysed by a 30-Plex immunoassay. Effect of time and osteotomy method on molecules employed Brunner-Langer method.
Detailed description
Surgical procedures Fourteen patients received 38 bone-level implants (4.1 mm diameter and 8 mm, 10 mm or 12 mm in length, Biodenta®, Bone Level Implant, Biodenta Swiss AG, Switzerland) Osteotomies were prepared with drills (drill group, control, n=19) on one side and with PS tips (piezosurgery group; test, n=19) on the contralateral side in a single session. Surgical, pre- and post-operative procedures were carried out as was previously described. Briefly, right side was always the first operated site where the osteotomies were prepared with one of the randomly selected methods. Toss of a coin at the beginning of the surgery by an independent examiner designated the random allocation and modality to be used on the right side of the patient. Left side received the other osteotomy modality. First a midcrestal incision was made and full-thickness flap was raised. Osteotomies were prepared in the drill group by marking the appropriate point with a trispade drill and then advancing the 2.0 mm pilot drill to the planned depth followed by 2.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 3.5 mm drills, respectively. In PS group osteotomies were prepared with PS device (Piezonmaster®, EMS SA, Switzerland) and its relevant tips (Swiss Instruments Surgery, Implant System, Switzerland). Initial tip with a 1.15 mm diameter was used along the predetermined depth to create a pilot osteotomy. Then the osteotomy was widened to a final diameter of 3.5 mm by using 1.95 mm, 2.5 mm, 2.8 mm, 3.05 mm and 3.3 mm tips, respectively. Intermediate and final diameters, depth and direction of the osteotomies were controlled in both groups with drill try-ins, which also function as paralleling pins. Bone taps or crestal drills were not used for final contouring in both groups. Then 4.1 mm-diameter implants were placed equicrestally by a handpiece at a speed of 15 rpm in both groups and insertion torque was recorded. Following transfer abutment removal, 4.0 mm diameter straight healing abutments were connected for non-submerged healing and flaps were stabilized with 5.0 polypropylene interrupted sutures. Patients were instructed to rinse with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate for 2 weeks and to abstain from brushing the surgery site for this period and not to chew on the healing abutments. They were prescribed 200 mg ibuprofen t.i.d for 1 week. The sutures were removed at 2nd week following the surgery.
Clinical and radiological procedures A single examiner performed clinical measurements. Modified gingival (MGI) and plaque indices (MPI) were taken on weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 from 4 points around each implant with a plastic probe (UNC 12 Colorvue probe, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL). Probing depth (PD) was measured on weeks 12 and 24 following surgery with the same probe type (Figure 3). Repeatability of the examiner for PD measurements was κw=0.88. Flap closure and its continuity were evaluated on days 7 and 14 by early healing index (EHI), which had been originally described for postoperative monitoring of regenerative procedures for intrabony defects.
Crestal bone level measurements were performed as previously described. In brief, radiographic images were obtained by cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) (Kodak 9000 3D, Practice Works, Inc., Atlanta, USA) on the day of surgery and at week 24. Standardized periapical radiographs were obtained at week 12 using a photostimulable phosphor plate with position holders (Rinn XCP, Dentsply International) and the long-cone paralleling technique. Images were digitalized by a photostimulable phosphor plate scanner (Digora® Optime, Soredex, USA).
CB levels on radiographic images were measured with a Java-based software (Image-J 3.0, NIH, Bethesda, USA) by a masked and calibrated examiner (GPT; Cronbach's alpha=0.99). Implant shoulder (IS), first bone to implant contact (fBIC), implant abutment interface and apex of the implant were used as reference points. Mean of triple measurements rounded to the nearest 0.01 mm were used. CB loss was recorded by measuring the IS-fBIC distance on periapical radiograms at week 12 and on CBCT sections at week 24.
Biochemical procedures Postoperative PISF samples were obtained from 4 aspects of implants on weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24. Sites were isolated by cotton rolls and visible supramucosal plaque was removed from healing abutment surfaces with a fiber carbon curette before sampling. Following gentle air-drying, paper strips (Periopaper, ProFlow, Amityville, NY, USA) were inserted 1 mm into the crevice and left in place for 30 s. Care was taken to avoid mechanical injury. The PISF volume absorbed on each strip was then determined by means of an electronic impedance device (Periotron 8000, ProFlow, Inc., Amityville, NY, USA), and all four were pooled into a sterile polypropylene tube which was previously coded to ensure masking of the laboratory technician and kept at -40C until analysed. The readings from the Periotron 8000 were converted to volume (µl) by reference to the standard curve. The collected PISF samples were eluted in 450 µl phosphate buffer saline (PBS, pH 7.2) in the presence of EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail ( Roche Applied Science, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and centrifuged at 2000 x g for 15 min, at 4C. The levels of the molecules under investigation in the eluted PISF samples were determined by the cytokine human magnetic 30-Plex panel (Novex®, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) consisting of cytokines (G-CSF, GM-CSF, IFNα, IFNγ, IL1β, IL1RA, IL2, IL2R, IL4, IL5, IL6, IL7, IL8, IL10, IL12 (p40/p70), IL13, IL15, IL17, TNFα), chemokines (Eotaxin, CXCL10, MCP1, MIG, MIP1α, MIP1β, RANTES) and growth factors (EGF, FGF-basic, HGF, VEGF), on the Luminex®200 platform. Bead fluorescence readings were done by Luminex®200 and analyzed using a software (xPONENT®, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
Data analysis A statistician who was blinded to the groups performed data analysis using non-parametrical methods. Implants were used as the unit of analysis. Clinical and radiological parameters served as primary outcome variables.The secondary outcome variable was selected as cytokine, chemokine and growth factor levels. Both primary and secondary outcomes were tested with Brunner and Langer method LDF2 model using a software (R software, version 3.3.1, package: nparLD, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; r-project.org). The following hypothesis was tested: "Changes in PISF cytokine, chemokine and growth factor levels are dependent on preparation method of osteotomy (piezosurgery vs drilling) and time after surgery".
Week 2 values of RANTES in study groups were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. RANTES values of groups at weeks 4, 8, 12 and 24 which were calculated as the difference from week 2 values were compared with Bonferroni corrected Mann-Whitney U test. EHI scores were compared with McNemar-Bowker chi-square test. Examiner calibration was assessed by weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient methods for PD and radiological CB loss measurements, respectively with a statistical software (SPSS 20.0, SPSS for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).
Significance level was set at 5% for all analyses. Required sample size was calculated using a software28 (G*Power 3.1, version 3.1.9.2) estimating a power of 80%, p-value of 5% in study groups for one-tailed test of matched pairs. Sample size calculation analysis suggested at least 18 implants for both groups.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Piezosurgery | Experimental | Procedure: PiezosurgeryOsteotomy preparation entirely with piezosurgery tips and equicrestal placement of a 4.1 mm implant in the piezosurgery (test) group were performed as follows: 1.15 mm initial MB1 tip, 1.95 mm MB2 tip, control of depth, diameter and direction of osteotomy with 2.0 mm paralleling pin, 2.5 mm MB3 tip, 2.8 mm MB4 tip, 2.8 mm paralleling pin, 3.05 mm MB5 tip, 3.3 mm MB6 tip, control of final diameter of the osteotomy with 3.5 mm paralleling pin, placement of the 4.1 mm diameter implant and connection of a 4 mm-wide healing abutment. |
| Drill | Active comparator | Procedure: DrillPreparation of an implant recipient site entirely with relevant drills were performed as follows: Osteotomy preparation and equicrestal placement of a 4.1 mm diameter implant in the drill (control) group were performed as follows: initial trispade drill, 2.0 mm pilot drill, control of depth, diameter and direction of osteotomy with 2.0 mm paralleling pin, 2.5 mm drill, 2.8 mm drill, 2.8 mm paralleling pin, 3.5 mm drill, control of final diameter of the osteotomy with 3.5 mm paralleling pin, placement of the 4.1 mm diameter implant and connection of a 4 mm wide healing abutment. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 31 to 64 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Bilateral partial edentulism in posterior maxilla
- >8 mm available bone height (distance between bone crest and maxillary sinus) and ≥7 mm bone width
- At least 2 mm buccal keratinized mucosa width and 3 mm mucosa thickness.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Diseases and conditions or medications which may negatively influence biological dynamics of bone and wound healing
- Ridge deficiencies requiring additional augmentation
- Indication of sinus lifting with crestal or lateral approach
- Endodontic or periodontal lesions neighbouring the edentulous sites were anatomic exclusion criteria
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 |
|---|---|---|
| PiezosurgeryPreparation of implant beds entirely with piezo surgery implant tips | Procedure or surgery | Piezosurgery |
| DrillPreparation of implant beds entirely with conventional implant drills | Procedure or surgery | Drill |
Primary outcome
Radiological bone levels at 12th and 24th weeks (Change from Baseline)
Time frame: Baseline (implant placement), 12th and 24th weeks after implant placement
Bone Loss (measured distance from implant shoulder to first bone to implant contact on periodical radiographs and computerised cone beam tomography
26 secondary outcomes
IL-1beta content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
G.CSF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-13 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-6 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-12 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-17 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-15 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-5 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IFN gamma content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IFN alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-1Ra alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-2 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-7 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-2R alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-4 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IL-8 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
RANTES alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MIP-1alpha alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MIP-1beta alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MCP-1 alpha content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
MIG content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
IP-10 content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
FGF-b content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
EGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
HGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
VEGF content of peri implant sulcus fluid at 4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks (Change from 2nd week)
Time frame: 2nd,4th, 8th, 12th and 24th weeks
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 29 May 2018.
- Results publication: PubMed 12755774Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Jun;14(3):251-62. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00972.x.
- Results publication: PubMed 17224016Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Welander M, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Morphogenesis of the peri-implant mucosa: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Feb;18(1):1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01380.x.
- Results publication: PubMed 23799997Tomasi C, Tessarolo F, Caola I, Wennstrom J, Nollo G, Berglundh T. Morphogenesis of peri-implant mucosa revisited: an experimental study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Sep;25(9):997-1003. doi: 10.1111/clr.12223. Epub 2013 Jun 26.
- Results publication: PubMed 27329966Tomasi C, Tessarolo F, Caola I, Piccoli F, Wennstrom JL, Nollo G, Berglundh T. Early healing of peri-implant mucosa in man. J Clin Periodontol. 2016 Oct;43(10):816-24. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12591. Epub 2016 Jul 28.
- Results publication: PubMed 28281321Insua A, Monje A, Wang HL, Miron RJ. Basis of bone metabolism around dental implants during osseointegration and peri-implant bone loss. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Jul;105(7):2075-2089. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36060. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
- Results publication: PubMed 24053147Esteves JC, Marcantonio E Jr, de Souza Faloni AP, Rocha FR, Marcantonio RA, Wilk K, Intini G. Dynamics of bone healing after osteotomy with piezosurgery or conventional drilling - histomorphometrical, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis. J Transl Med. 2013 Sep 23;11:221. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-221.
- Results publication: PubMed 17397320Preti G, Martinasso G, Peirone B, Navone R, Manzella C, Muzio G, Russo C, Canuto RA, Schierano G. Cytokines and growth factors involved in the osseointegration of oral titanium implants positioned using piezoelectric bone surgery versus a drill technique: a pilot study in minipigs. J Periodontol. 2007 Apr;78(4):716-22. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060285.
- Results publication: PubMed 26077862Peker Tekdal G, Bostanci N, Belibasakis GN, Gurkan A. The effect of piezoelectric surgery implant osteotomy on radiological and molecular parameters of peri-implant crestal bone loss: a randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May;27(5):535-44. doi: 10.1111/clr.12620. Epub 2015 Jun 16.
- Results publication: PubMed 28710652Bielemann AM, Marcello-Machado RM, Leite FRM, Martinho FC, Chagas-Junior OL, Antoninha Del Bel Cury A, Faot F. Comparison between inflammation-related markers in peri-implant crevicular fluid and clinical parameters during osseointegration in edentulous jaws. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):531-543. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2169-0. Epub 2017 Jul 14.
- Results publication: PubMed 27504534Chien HH, Meng HW, Gross AC, Eubank TD, Yildiz VO, Leblebicioglu B. The Effect of Platform Switching on Periimplant Crevicular Fluid Content During Early Wound Healing. Implant Dent. 2016 Oct;25(5):629-37. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000463.
- Results publication: PubMed 23772674Emecen-Huja P, Eubank TD, Shapiro V, Yildiz V, Tatakis DN, Leblebicioglu B. Peri-implant versus periodontal wound healing. J Clin Periodontol. 2013 Aug;40(8):816-24. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12127. Epub 2013 Jun 18.
- Results publication: PubMed 24641001Sculean A, Gruber R, Bosshardt DD. Soft tissue wound healing around teeth and dental implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S6-22. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12206.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Tooth Loss
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Melatonin in Posterior Mandible Extraction Socket
Bone Loss
Not yet recruiting
Safety Assessment of Placing a Single Dental Implant Without Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Simple Cases: A Pilot Study
Tooth Loss and Rehabillitation, Dental Implant Failure
Active, not recruiting
L-PRF Block vs Composite Graft for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation
Alveolar Ridge Resorption After Extraction, Alveolar Bone Loss
Enrolling by invitation
Peri-implant Tissue Changes Using Dual Zone Concept With Connective Tissue Graft Versus Concentrated Growth Factor
Hopeless Tooth in Esthetic Zone, Loss of Soft and Hard Tissue Around Implant
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Ascorbic Acid-Loaded I-PRF With Partially Demineralized Dentin Graft on Alveolar Ridge Preservation
Alveolar Ridge Preservation Post-Extraction Bone Healing Dental Implant Site Development Tooth Loss, Alveolar Bone Regeneration Following Odontectomy
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Piezosurgery and Drill in people with Tooth Loss and Edentulous Jaw, run by Ege University.
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 4 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 29 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Radiological bone levels at 12th and 24th weeks (Change from Baseline) (time frame: Baseline (implant placement), 12th and 24th weeks after implant placement). 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 NCT03538184, which also lists 12 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 29 May 2018.