AzTrials
AzTrials

Partial EdentulismNCT07886762

Comparison of Two Dental Implant Types and Placement Depths on Bone Around the Implant in Adults Missing Back Teeth

A study testing issue-level implant placed at crestal level (Klockner Essential Cone) and Bone-level implant placed 2 mm subcrestally with one-abutment-one-time protocol (Klockner Vega) in people with Partial Edentulism and Dental Implants, run by Markel Diéguez-Pereira at 1 site in Spain.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record

Search all trials

Trial summary

The goal of this clinical trial was to compare two ways of placing and restoring dental implants in adults missing one or more back teeth. The main question it aimed to answer was: does a bone-level implant placed 2 mm below the bone crest, with a final abutment that is never removed, preserve more of the bone around… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
What is being tested?
issue-level implant placed at crestal level (Klockner Essential Cone) and Bone-level implant placed 2 mm subcrestally with one-abutment-one-time protocol (Klockner Vega)
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
30 participants
Where
1 siteSpain
Study dates
2 May 2022to 6 Nov 2024
Phase
Interventional

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 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Adults in good general health
  • Missing one or more back teeth that can be replaced with a dental implant
  • Healthy gums, with no active gum disease
  • Good oral hygiene (plaque and gum bleeding scores below 20%)
  • Enough jawbone to place an implant at least 4 mm wide and 8 mm long, with at least 1.5 mm of bone around the implant, as confirmed by a 3D dental scan (CBCT)

Who cannot join

  • Smoking
  • Uncontrolled diabetes
  • Treatment with intravenous bisphosphonates (bone-strengthening drugs given by injection)
  • Weakened immune system or treatment with immunosuppressive drugs
  • Active cancer
  • Previous radiotherapy to the head or neck
Show all 9Show fewer
  • Pregnancy
  • Untreated gum disease (periodontitis)
  • Insufficient jawbone quality or quantity

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Spain1 site
  • Clinica Dental MD

    Bilbao, Bizkaia, 48012

Other trials in Spain

About this study

Official title: Marginal Bone Remodeling and Peri-Implant Inflammatory Biomarkers Around Crestally Placed Tissue-Level and Subcrestally Placed Bone-Level Implants: A Prospective Randomized Study

The goal of this clinical trial was to compare two ways of placing and restoring dental implants in adults missing one or more back teeth. The main question it aimed to answer was: does a bone-level implant placed 2 mm below the bone crest, with a final abutment that is never removed, preserve more of the bone around the implant than a tissue-level implant placed at the level of the bone crest?

Each implant was randomly assigned by coin toss to one of the two treatments. Researchers measured the bone level around the implants on dental X-rays at crown placement, 6 months after loading, and at a final visit 12 to 24 months after loading. They also measured two markers of inflammation (IL-1β and MMP-8) in the fluid around the implants 6 months after loading.

Read the detailed description

Design. Prospective, parallel-group randomized clinical trial conducted in private dental clinics in northern Spain. Randomization was performed at the implant level by simple coin toss at the surgical planning stage; patients receiving more than one implant could receive both configurations. There was no allocation concealment. Radiographic assessors and laboratory staff were blinded to group allocation.

Interventions. Tissue-level implants (Klockner Essential Cone, 1.5 mm machined transmucosal collar, conical connection) were placed with the treated surface at the crestal level. Bone-level implants (Klockner Vega, internal hexagon with a 10° conical interface and integrated platform switching) were placed 2 mm subcrestally. In the bone-level group, a definitive 2 mm transepithelial abutment was connected 2 months after surgery and was not removed thereafter (one-abutment-one-time concept). All implants were placed after mucoperiosteal flap elevation under antibiotic prophylaxis (2 g amoxicillin 1 h before surgery) and restored with screw-cement-retained monolithic zirconia single crowns.

Radiographic assessment. Standardized periapical radiographs were taken with the long-cone paralleling technique, using film holders and individualized silicone bite registrations. Marginal bone level was measured with ImageJ, calibrated on the known implant thread pitch, by two independent examiners.

Biomarker analysis. Peri-implant crevicular fluid was collected with sterile paper points (20 s), stored at -79 °C and analysed by ELISA for IL-1β and MMP-8.

Statistical analysis. Marginal bone level was analysed with linear mixed-effects models including random intercepts for patient and implant, to account for the clustering of implants within patients and for repeated measurements.

Being tested
issue-level implant placed at crestal level (Klockner Essential Cone), Bone-level implant placed 2 mm subcrestally with one-abutment-one-time protocol (Klockner Vega)
Keywords
bone-level implant, tissue-level implant, subcrestal placement, marginal bone loss, one-abutment one-time, platform switching, peri-implant crevicular fluid, IL-1 beta, MMP-8
Medical subject headings
Alveolar Bone Loss

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • issue-level implant placed at crestal level (Klockner Essential Cone)Device

    Tissue-level dental implant with a 1.5 mm machined transmucosal collar and conical connection, placed with the treated surface at the level of the bone crest after flap elevation.

  • Bone-level implant placed 2 mm subcrestally with one-abutment-one-time protocol (Klockner Vega)Device

    Bone-level dental implant with an internal hexagonal connection, 10° conical interface and platform switching, placed 2 mm below the bone crest. A definitive 2 mm transepithelial abutment was connected 2 months after surgery and never removed.

Study groups in NCT07886762
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Tissue-level implant, crestal placementActive comparatorKlockner Essential Cone tissue-level implants (1.5 mm machined transmucosal collar, conical connection) placed with the treated surface at the crestal level and restored with monolithic zirconia single crowns.
Receives: Device: issue-level implant placed at crestal level (Klockner Essential Cone)
Bone-level implant, 2 mm subcrestal placementExperimentalKlockner Vega bone-level implants (internal hexagon with 10° conical interface and platform switching) placed 2 mm subcrestally. A definitive 2 mm transepithelial abutment was connected 2 months after surgery and was never removed (one-abutment-one-time protocol). Restored with monolithic zirconia single crowns.
Receives: Device: Bone-level implant placed 2 mm subcrestally with one-abutment-one-time protocol (Klockner Vega)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change From Baseline in Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Level at Final Follow-up

    Vertical distance (mm) from the bone crest to the first implant thread, measured at the mesial and distal sites on standardized periapical radiographs (long-cone paralleling technique) with calibrated ImageJ software by two blinded examiners. Change is calculated as the baseline value minus the follow-up value; positive values indicate bone loss.

    Measured: Baseline (prosthesis delivery), 6 months after loading, and final follow-up (12 to 24 months after loading)

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Interleukin-1β Concentration in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid

    IL-1β concentration (pg/mL) in peri-implant crevicular fluid collected with sterile paper points (20 s) and analysed in duplicate by ELISA. Values below the detection limit (0.4 pg/mL) were set at half the detection limit for analysis.

    Measured: 12 months after loading

  2. Matrix Metalloproteinase-8 Concentration in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid

    MMP-8 concentration (ng/mL) in peri-implant crevicular fluid collected with sterile paper points (20 s) and analysed in duplicate by ELISA. Values below the detection limit (0.1 ng/mL) were set at half the detection limit for analysis.

    Measured: 12 months after loading

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted21 Oct 2026
  2. Study start2 May 2022
  3. Primary completion6 Nov 2024
  4. Study completion6 Nov 2024

Resources

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
Model description
Parallel-group design with randomization at the implant level (coin toss). Patients receiving more than one implant could receive implants of both configurations.
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
30 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07886762
Sponsor's protocol ID
CEImPA 264/19
Status last verified
Oct 2026
First submitted
14 Oct 2026
Last updated
21 Oct 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in