CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01641198Updated Dec 17, 2020Results posted

An Implant With an Acid-etched Fixture Surface and Internal-hex Collar May Achieve Greater Osseointegration.

An interventional study of Configuration 1 and Configuration 2 in Jaw, Edentulous and Dental Implant, sponsored by Université de Montréal. Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 25 Years to 56 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-12-17.

Sponsored by Université de Montréal · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 20 years 4 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Mar 1992, registered Jul 2012).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
58
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
25 Years to 56 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Brånemark System® dental implant osseointegration was introduced clinically in 1965 as a novel approach to the replacement of missing teeth. Although this implant's traditional machined screw-shaped surface had excellent, well-documented short- and long-term osseointegration success, newer implant designs were introduced that could enhance biological fusion of the implant to jaw bones, allowing more rapid restoration and function. It was also claimed that such implants could lead to less bone loss with function. One such implant, Screw-Vent®, had a macrostructure very similar to that of the Brånemark implant, except that it's fixture surface was acid-etched which could enhance biological osseointegration. It also had a longer narrower smooth internal-hex interlocking flat collar that could better resist occlusal forces, leading to even less bone loss according to the manufacturer. However, no well-controlled clinical studies existed in 1990 that supported these claims. This study was undertaken, therefore, to first compare the Brånemark implant with another implant, Swede-Vent®, a copy of the Brånemark implant except for its fixture surface that was identically acid-etched as that of Screw-Vent by the same manufacturer. The effect on bone healing could then be compared between Brånemark's machined and Swede-Vent's acid-etched surfaces in the short- and long-terms. Our hypothesis was that the microtextured Swede-Vent fixture would lead to greater bone preservation. Since Screw-Vent's fixture surface was identically acid-etched as that of Swede-Vent by the same manufacturer, we could then evaluate the effect on bone healing of Screw-Vent's collar and the shorter wider machined smooth external-hex flat collar of Swede-Vent (identical to that of Brånemark). All three 2-part platform-matched parallel-wall implants were made of commercially pure titanium, had a very similar fixture macro-design, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (USA) and Health and Welfare Canada, and were commercially available in North America. Brånemark is still available, but with an oxidized microtextured fixture surface and a shortened machined smooth external-hex flat collar. Screw-Vent is still available with its microtextured fixture surface, but its machined smooth internal-hex flat collar has also been substantially shortened. Swede-Vent is no longer available.

Read the detailed description

This prospective randomized long-term superiority clinical trial tests the hypothesis that an implant with an acid-etched fixture surface and internal-hex machined flat collar results in greater bone preservation.

Age-eligible participants were recruited into this study between 1990 and 1992 from the external clinics of a university dental faculty and hospital affiliated dental department. Study was peer reviewed, had satisfied ethics committee's criteria for human clinical research, and was to take place at the university dental faculty and hospital affiliated department. Sixty participants were enrolled. The study's coordinator evaluated clinical charts to confirm that participants had satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria, and that registry operations, data collection, documentation and analysis followed established protocol.

A statistician who was not part of the research team prepared a sampling design that included three Configurations. Each Configuration contained five implants of the three types, thereby allowing an equal number of each implant type to be placed in a cyclical side-by-side rotating fashion at each of five sites between the mental foramen. Consequently, 100 implants of each of the three types were to be placed for a total of 300. However, two participants opted out before start of study so that 58 (30 women) received 290 implants, and each participant acted as their own control. A different identification number was placed on each participant's chart, and allocation concealment then allowed 20 participants to receive Configuration 1, 19 Configuration 2, and 19 Configuration 3. Configuration diagram (but not number) identifying the implant type and length to be placed at each site was stored inside each chart, and only shown to the operating team at surgery. Following restoration with a fixed complete dental prosthesis on the implants, each participant was examined and standardized peri-apical radiographs were taken of each implant after 12 and 24 months and at 15-20 years of function. Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and crestal abutment-implant interface/microgap (MG) was measured at right and left sides of each abutment-implant surface on the radiographs by examiners who were not part of the research team. Mean fBIC-MG values were then calculated, documented and compared between Brånemark, Swede-Vent and Screw-vent at the three intervals.

Assessment was based on intention to treat. Inter and intra-examiner reliability of measurements was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Bland-Altman Repeatability. Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model that included fixed effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect). Position and time were repeated within participants, and Shapiro-Wilk Test was applied to verify that data was following normal distribution. Bonferroni correction was used for pairwise comparisons, and a p value of \<0.05 was considered significant. Confidence Interval was established at 2-sided 95% Confidence Level. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23® (IBM Corp, Armonk US).

The following were consulted in order to utilize standardized descriptive terms.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (1963) was used to classify each participant's physical health as Class 1 (obligatory).

Lekholm-Zarb Classification System (1987) was used to classify each participant's quality (density) of mandibular bone as Types 2 and 3 (obligatory).

Salzman Skeletal Bone Intermaxillary Classification System (1966) was used to classify each participant's profile skeletal relationship between maxilla and mandible as Class 1 (obligatory).

American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual (2001, fifth edition, Washington, DC) was used to describe certain participant baseline demographic characteristics.

02

Conditions studied

  • Jaw, Edentulous
  • Dental Implant

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Dental Implants Microtextured Fixture Machined Collar Bone
03

In context

Jaw, Edentulous

171 studies on the registry are indexed under Jaw, Edentulous; 24 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 58 is above the median of 33 across 146 interventional studies indexed under Jaw, Edentulous.

Browse Jaw, Edentulous studies →

Lead sponsor

Université de Montréal is the lead sponsor of 97 studies on the registry; 11 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
25 Years to 56 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Eligibility criteria

No systemic disease (ASA Class 1)

Aged between 25 and 56 years

Non-smoking

No Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) disorder or other facial pain

Wearing of complete maxillary and mandibular removable prostheses for at least one year

Skeletal Class 1 inter-maxillary relationship

Type 2 and/or Type 3 mandibular bone quality

Possess at least 1 cm of bone height between the superior and inferior cortical tables and at least 6 mm of bucco-lingual bone width between mental foramen

Specifically requesting a fixed full arch dental prosthesis over the implants and a conventional full arch removable maxillary prosthesis

Accepting to sign informed consent documents.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
58 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Configuration 1

    Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at one site

    Device: Configuration 1

  • Experimental
    Configuration 2

    Device placement: B (Brånemark) at one site, SW (Swede-Vent) at two sites, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites

    Device: Configuration 2

  • Experimental
    Configuration 3

    Device placement: B (Brånemark) at two sites, SW (Swede-Vent) at one site, SC (Screw-Vent) at two sites

    Device: Configuration 3

Interventions

  • DeviceConfiguration 1

    B placed at sites 2 and 5, SW placed at sites 1 and 4, SC placed at site 3

  • DeviceConfiguration 2

    B placed at site 3, SW placed at sites 2 and 5, SC placed at sites 1 and 4

  • DeviceConfiguration 3

    B placed at sites 1 and 4, SW placed at site 3, SC placed at sites 2 and 5

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing

    Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest was measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 12 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3

    Time frame: After 12 months of function

  2. Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing

    Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 24 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3

    Time frame: After 24 months of function

  3. Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing

    Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded at 15 to 20 years of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3

    Time frame: At 15-20 years of function

07

Results

Posted Jan 16, 2019

Participant flow

Recruitment period: 1990 - 1992

After 12 Months of Function
Participant flow — After 12 Months of Function
MilestoneConfiguration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3
Started201919
Completed161617
Not completed432
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up322
Withdrew: Protocol violation100
Withdrew: Adverse event010
After 24 Months of Function
Participant flow — After 24 Months of Function
MilestoneConfiguration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3
Started161617
Completed12711
Not completed496
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up496
At 15-20 Years of Function
Participant flow — At 15-20 Years of Function
MilestoneConfiguration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3
Started12711
Completed669
Not completed612
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up511
Withdrew: Death101

Outcome measures

PrimaryComparison of Quantitative Bone Healing

Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest was measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 12 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3

Time frame:
After 12 months of function
Reported as:
Mean · mm
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
mmConfiguration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing-1.18 ± 0.15-1.01 ± 0.16-0.91 ± 0.17
Statistical analysis
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): -0.29 · 95% CI -0.59 to 0.01Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): 0.39 · 95% CI 0.09 to 0.69Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): -0.685 · 95% CI -0.98 to -0.39Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
PrimaryComparison of Quantitative Bone Healing

Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded after 24 months of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3

Time frame:
After 24 months of function
Reported as:
Mean · mm
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
mmConfiguration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing-1.16 ± 0.18-0.87 ± 0.23-1.33 ± 0.18
Statistical analysis
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): -0.17 · 95% CI -0.47 to 0.13Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): 0.56 · 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): -0.725 · 95% CI -1.02 to -0.43Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
PrimaryComparison of Quantitative Bone Healing

Distance between first bone-to-implant contact point (fBIC) and microgap (MG) placed at the crest is measured at the right and left sides of each implant-abutment complex on periapical radiographs taken of each implant. Measurements were taken and recorded at 15 to 20 years of function. Mean fBIC-MG values were calculated, recorded and compared between B and SW, between B and SC and between SW and SC for Configuration 1, Configuration 2 and Configuration 3

Time frame:
At 15-20 years of function
Reported as:
Mean · mm
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing
mmConfiguration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3
Comparison of Quantitative Bone Healing-1.32 ± 0.27-1.42 ± 0.33-1.54 ± 0.33
Statistical analysis
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): 0.20 · 95% CI -0.19 to 0.59Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): 0.83 · 95% CI 0.45 to 1.22Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)
  • Configuration 1 vs Configuration 2 vs Configuration 3 · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.05 (Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons) · Mean difference (final values): -0.635 · 95% CI -1.01 to -0.26Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse data collection after 12 and 24 months, and 15-20 years of function. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Configuration 11/20 (5%)0/20 (0%)0/20 (0%)
Configuration 20/19 (0%)1/19 (5.3%)0/19 (0%)
Configuration 31/19 (5.3%)0/19 (0%)0/19 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventConfiguration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3
Loss of jaw implantMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders0/201/190/19

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Mean45.3 ± 5.345.5 ± 5.644.8 ± 6.145.2 ± 5.6
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Female10101030
Male109928
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Canada20191958
Number of Participants with Health Status ASA Classification 1
Number of Participants with Health Status ASA Classification 1(Participants)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Count of participants20191958
Number of Participants with Mandibular bone classification types 2 & 3
Number of Participants with Mandibular bone classification types 2 & 3(Participants)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Count of participants20191958
Removable complete dental prostheses obligatory
Removable complete dental prostheses obligatory(Participants)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Count of participants20191958
Specifically requesting a complete lower prosthesis on implants
Specifically requesting a complete lower prosthesis on implants(Participants)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Count of participants20191958
Accepting to sign informed consent documents
Accepting to sign informed consent documents(Participants)Configuration 1Configuration 2Configuration 3Total
Count of participants20191958
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Université de Montréal
    Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada
09

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 17, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01641198
Lead sponsor
Université de Montréal
Collaborators
Medical Research Council of Canada, FRSQ, CoreVent, Université de Montréal
Responsible party
Aldo Joseph Camarda (Associate Professor, Université de Montréal) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 16, 2012
Start date
Mar 1992
Primary completion
Mar 24, 1998
Completion
Sep 30, 2013
Results posted
Jan 16, 2019
Last update
Dec 17, 2020

Study contacts

Patrice Milot, DMD,MSD
principal investigator · Université de Montréal
Hugo Ciaburro, DMD, MSc
principal investigator · Université de Montréal
Aldo-Joseph Camarda, DDS, MSc
principal investigator · Université de Montréal

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion