CClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT06081192SMIS-MaxUpdated Oct 13, 2023

Partially-guided Protocol for Maxillary Overdentures Retained by Ti-Zr One-piece Mini Implants

An interventional study of Implant placement surgery in Edentulous Jaw and Implant Complication, sponsored by Universidade Federal de Goias. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 60 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-10-13.

Sponsored by Universidade Federal de Goias · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Aug 2025, 1 year 2 months ago, but the record still lists the study as not yet recruiting.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
12
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
60 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a single-center, single-group, prospective clinical trial testing a partially-guided protocol for placement of mini implants overdentures in the edentulous maxilla. Eligible participants will be subjects with an edentulous maxilla, wearing a conventional complete denture. Participants will receive six mini implants (Straumann® Mini Implant System, Institut Straumann AG, Switzerland) for retention of a maxillary overdenture. The six mini implant protocol will be virtually planned for an even distribution of the implants bilaterally, with a minimum of 5 mm distance between contiguous implants. The available lengths of the mini implants are 10, 12, and 14 mm, and the appropriate length will be selected according to the bony anatomical situation. In addition, the distribution and axial position of the mini implants will be planned to achieve the best biomechanical distribution and the most parallel position between implants, perpendicular to the occlusal plane and path of insertion of the prosthesis. The primary outcome will be the accuracy of the implant position using the partially-guided protocol. Assessment of the accuracy of the methods will be based on the measure of the difference between the actual and the planned position of the mini implants, based on the measurement of (1) the global deviations at the coronal and apical regions of the mini implants, (2) the vertical deviation, and (3) the apical angle deviation. Overall impacts of treatment on oral health-related quality of life will be assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile instrument for edentulous subjects (OHIP-EDENT). Additional outcomes will include implant survival and success rates, incidence of prosthodontic complications and peri-implant measurements.

Read the detailed description

Design This is a single-center, single-group, prospective clinical trial testing a partially-guided protocol for placement of mini implants overdentures in the edentulous maxilla.

Study setting, trial registration, and funding This clinical trial will be conducted in the clinical setting of the School of Dentistry of the Federal University of Goias, Brazil. The research protocol will be previously submitted for ethical approval by the local Ethical Research Committee and will be registered prospectively at the ClinicalTrial.gov database before initiating patient recruitment.

Participants Eligible participants will be subjects with an edentulous maxilla, wearing a conventional complete denture. They will be selected from the list of patients who received conventional treatment at least six months previously. The possible conditions of the mandibular arch will include fully dentate subjects, partially edentate wearing fixed or removable prostheses, fixed or removable implant-supported dentures, or a shortened dental arch.

During the recruitment phase of the study, they will be informed about the treatment to be provided, details about the clinical trial, and the need for collaboration in the prescribed procedures and post-treatment follow-up visits over a minimum 1-year period. The selected participants will sign an informed consent form to participate in the study.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria We will select participants ≥ 60 years of age, with an edentulous maxillary arch, wearing a complete maxillary denture evaluated as sufficient for surgical planning. At the implant site level, they should present a healed edentulous maxilla (minimum of twelve weeks since the last extraction), minimal ridge dimensions of 5.4 mm (width) by 12 mm (height) in the anterior and premolar maxillary area, allowing the placement of one-piece implants with a 2.4 mm-diameter and minimum length of 10 mm. General health condition should be a physical status ASA1 or ASA2.

Excluded criteria will comprise the inability to perform adequate oral hygiene, incapability to provide written informed consent and compliance to the protocol, and any contraindication for oral surgery such as but not limited to, uncontrolled diabetes, immunosuppression, radiation, chemotherapy, or antiresorptive medication such as bisphosphonates, presence of dental, periodontal or peri-implant disease in the opposing arch, presence of a conventional complete denture in the opposing arch (mandible), presence of an insufficient partial removable denture or implant-overdenture in the opposing arch, which cannot be rendered sufficient by a reline, a heavy smoking habit with > 20 cig/d, reported severe bruxism or clenching habits, clinically present oro-facial pain, depression with a Geriatric Depression Scale above 12, xerostomia with a stimulated salivary flow rate inferior to 0.7 ml/min. At the implant site level, potential participants will be excluded if they present a ridge morphology type IV, defects requiring bone augmentation procedures, or unhealthy soft tissues.

Intervention This prospective clinical trial will be conducted on maxillary edentulous patients recruited for treatment with six mini implants (Straumann® Mini Implant System, Institut Straumann AG, Switzerland) for retention of a maxillary overdenture.

Surgical diagnostic will consist of a preoperative visit with a thorough examination of the patient's medical and dental history, and clinical and radiological assessment. This includes a preliminary OPT-tomography to determine ridge morphology and exclude patients with insufficient ridge dimensions before additional radiographic examinations. In case of a positive preliminary radiographical examination, the radiological analysis will be performed with a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) radiograph of the maxillary arch. The existing denture will be marked with gutta-percha or composite spheres in the second premolar, canine and central incisor regions prior to image-taking for the purpose of spatial reference. The existing denture will be subsequently scanned with an intra-oral scanner (TRIOS; 3 Shape), and the STL file will be imported into an implant planning software (coDiagnostiX; Dental Wings GmbH) along with the DICOM files of the CBCT. The six mini implant protocol will be virtually planned for an even distribution of the implants bilaterally, with a minimum of 5 mm distance between contiguous implants. The available lengths of the mini implants are 10, 12, and 14 mm, and the appropriate length will be selected according to the bony anatomical situation. In addition, the distribution and axial position of the mini implants will be planned to achieve the best biomechanical distribution and the most parallel position between implants, perpendicular to the occlusal plane and path of insertion of the prosthesis.

Outcomes

  1. Accuracy of implant placement The primary outcome will be the accuracy of the implant position using the partially-guided protocol. Assessment of the accuracy of the methods will be based on the measure of the difference between the actual and the planned position of the mini implants, based on the measurement of (1) the global deviations at the coronal and apical regions of the mini implants, (2) the vertical deviation, and (3) the apical angle deviation. The global deviation is defined as the 3D distance between the coronal/apical centers of the planned and placed implants. The vertical deviation is the distance between the coronal center of the longitudinal axis of the planned implant and a plane parallel through the coronal center of the placed implant. The angle deviation will be measured as the angular divergence between the longitudinal axes of the planned and actual position of the mini implants.

    For image assessment, post-operative CBCT will be performed six weeks after surgery using the same CBCT machine and protocol used for the pre-operative CBCT. The images of the pre- and post-operative CBCTs will be superimposed using the automated surface best fit matching with the iterative closest point algorithm in the treatment evaluation mode of the coDiagnostiX® software. The individual deviations for the six inserted mini implants will be measured (in millimeters) at the limit between the machined and SLA surface of the mini implant, and at the apex between the planned and actual implant positions. The divergence of the implant axis (in degrees) will also be recorded. Six separate superimposing scans of the CBCT image will be obtained for each of the mini implants inserted in each patient, and measurements of deviations and angulations will be done separately.

  2. Treatment intercurrencies and complications Any complications associated with the surgical procedures, or deviations from the prescribed protocol due to surgical intercurrences will be recorded. These include failed drilling of the planned implant site, need to raise a flap for adequate positioning of the needle drill, fracture of the bone walls, insufficient insertion torque (\< 10 Ncm), early implant failure, and others.
  3. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) Overall impacts of treatment on oral health-related quality of life will be assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile instrument for edentulous subjects (OHIP-EDENT). This is a shorter version of the 49-item OHIP, and the validated Portuguese translation of the questionnaire will be utilized.

    Denture satisfaction will be evaluated by using the Denture Satisfaction Index (DSI), a 10mm visual analogue scale (VAS)-based questionnaire. This index evaluates ease of cleaning, general satisfaction, speech, comfort, aesthetics, stability, chewing ability, function and the general oral condition.

  4. Chewing efficiency Chewing efficiency will be evaluated with a two-color mixing ability test, where participants are given a two-colored chewing gum and are asked to chew the specimen for 20 chewing cycles. The resulting bolus is evaluated visually on a reference scale and opto-electronically using the Variance of Hue (VOH).
  5. Maximum voluntary bite force (MBF) The Gnathodynamometer DMD® (Kratos Equipamentos Industriais Ltda., Cotia - SP, Brazil) is utilized. It is a digital force gauge with an 8.6mm thick bite element. MBF is assessed bilaterally between the upper and lower first molar. The participant's task is to bite as hard as possible on the force gauge, but to stop clenching when she/ he starts feeling uncomfortable. The peak force of three recordings carried out on each side will be used for analysis.
  6. Implant Survival and Success

    Implant Survival and Success rate will be defined as followed:

    I - Success (optimum health) II - Satisfactory survival III - Compromised survival

    IV - Failure (clinical absolute failure) Any of following:

    Additionally, fractured implants will be considered as failures, except fracture of the implant apex during implant placement.

  7. Prosthetic Success and Survival

    During the prosthodontic examination, the implant-supported prostheses will be examined for any complications according to the 2015 ITI Treatment Guide:

    A failure will be defined as an event leading to the loss of the reconstruction and need for the fabrication of a new overdenture.

  8. Clinical Peri-implant Measurements At 4 sites per implant (mesial/distal/buccal/oral), the following clinical parameters will be evaluated at baseline and each follow-up visit: Plaque index and bleeding on probing; Pocket probing depth; width of the keratinized tissue around implants.
  9. Peri-implant bone height Intra-oral radiographs are exported and four parallel lines are drawn corresponding to the shoulder and the apical end of the implant on. One line each is placed at the shoulder and apical end of the implant and the other two at the defined bone level on the mesial and distal aspect of the implant. Knowing the implant length and using the implant-shoulder as a reference point, bone levels can be calculated through a simple rule of three with NIH Image J V1.44.
  10. Implant Stability Primary implant stability will be assessed by measuring the final and peak insertion torques, and the primary and secondary implant stability will be assessed using the Periotest® instrument.

The Periotest® hand piece (Periotest®, Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) will be used with the head of the patient stabilized so that the implants were perpendicular to the floor, and the Periotest will be held parallel to the floor. The test point will be in the most gingival region of the Optiloc attachment, and each measurement will be performed 3 times and the average value will be recorded for each implant.

Sample size:

The sample size for this study will include 10 participants. A 20% increase in sample size will be adopted to account for patient dropout during the 1-year follow-up, and with no relevant impact on the study power. Therefore, the final sample will comprise of 12 participants, and 72 units at the implant-level.

Data analysis:

Descriptive statistics and bivariate tests for independent groups will be used to analyze differences between groups, according to the data distribution patterns. Subsequently, a Linear Mixed-Effects Model (LMM) regression will be used to test the effect of independent variables (anatomic and functional features) on the post-surgical accuracy of the implant position. This multi-level approach will be used because of the clustered effect of multiple implants within patients.

02

Conditions studied

  • Edentulous Jaw
  • Implant Complication

Keywords

  • Dental implant
  • Overdenture
  • Edentulous patient
  • Clinical study
  • Effectiveness
03

In context

Jaw, Edentulous

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

This study's planned enrollment of 12 is below the median of 33 across 146 interventional studies indexed under Jaw, Edentulous.

Browse Jaw, Edentulous studies →

Lead sponsor

Universidade Federal de Goias is the lead sponsor of 41 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
60 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • ≥ 60 years of age
  • healed dentulous maxillary arch (minimum of twelve weeks since the last extraction)
  • wearing a complete maxillary denture evaluated as sufficient for surgical planning
  • minimal ridge dimensions of 5.4 mm (width) by 12 mm (height) in the anterior and premolar maxillary area
  • bone dimensions allowing the placement of one-piece implants with a 2.4 mm-diameter and minimum length of 10 mm.
  • general health condition should be a physical status ASA1 or ASA2.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • inability to perform adequate oral hygiene
  • incapability to provide written informed consent and compliance to the protocol
  • any contraindication for oral surgery such as but not limited to,

    • uncontrolled diabetes
    • immunosuppression
    • radiation or chemotherapy
    • antiresorptive medication such as bisphosphonates
    • presence of dental, periodontal or peri-implant disease in the opposing arch
    • presence of a conventional complete denture in the opposing arch (mandible)
    • presence of an insufficient partial removable denture or implant-overdenture in the opposing arch, which cannot be rendered sufficient by a reline
    • heavy smoking habit with > 20 cig/d
    • reported severe bruxism or clenching habits
    • clinically present oro-facial pain
    • depression with a Geriatric Depression Scale above 12
    • xerostomia with a stimulated salivary flow rate inferior to 0.7 ml/min
  • ridge morphology type IV (Cawood and Howell, 1988)
  • defects requiring bone augmentation procedures, or unhealthy soft tissues.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
12 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    One-piece titanium-zirconium mini implants

    Six one-piece titanium-zirconium mini implants (Straumann® Mini Implant System, Institut Straumann AG, Switzerland) in the edentulous maxilla, using a partially-guided insertion protocol.

    Procedure: Implant placement surgery

Interventions

  • ProcedureImplant placement surgery

    Placement of six mini implants in the edentulous maxilla using a partially-guided protocol

    Also known as: Dental implant

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Accuracy of implant placement

    Assessment of the accuracy of the methods will be based on the measure of the difference between the actual and the planned position of the mini implants, based on the measurement of (1) the global deviations at the coronal and apical regions of the mini implants, (2) the vertical deviation, and (3) the apical angle deviation. The global deviation is defined as the 3D distance between the coronal/apical centers of the planned and placed implants. The vertical deviation is the distance between the coronal center of the longitudinal axis of the planned implant and a plane parallel through the coronal center of the placed implant. The angle deviation will be measured as the angular divergence between the longitudinal axes of the planned and actual position of the mini implants. The divergence of the implant axis (in degrees) will also be recorded.

    Time frame: 6 weeks

  2. Surgery intercurrencies and complications

    Any complications associated with the surgical procedures, or deviations from the prescribed protocol due to surgical intercurrences will be recorded. These include failed drilling of the planned implant site, need to raise a flap for adequate positioning of the needle drill, fracture of the bone walls, insufficient insertion torque (\< 10 Ncm), early implant failure, and others.

    Time frame: 6 weeks

  3. Treatment intercurrencies and complications

    Any post-treatment complications associated with the use of the maxillary overdenture

    Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year

  4. Oral health-related quality of life impacts

    Overall impacts of treatment on oral health-related quality of life will be assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile instrument for edentulous subjects (OHIP-EDENT). It contains 19 questions in seven domains and proved to be sensitive to changes in prosthetic treatment and oral health. For each of the questions, subjects are asked how frequently they have experienced the event during the last month. Responses are given on a 5-item Likert scale. In this study, the validated Portuguese translation of the questionnaire will be utilized.

    Time frame: 6 months

  5. Oral health-related quality of life impacts

    Overall impacts of treatment on oral health-related quality of life will be assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile instrument for edentulous subjects (OHIP-EDENT). It contains 19 questions in seven domains and proved to be sensitive to changes in prosthetic treatment and oral health. For each of the questions, subjects are asked how frequently they have experienced the event during the last month. Responses are given on a 5-item Likert scale. In this study, the validated Portuguese translation of the questionnaire will be utilized.

    Time frame: 1 year

  6. Denture Satisfaction Index

    Denture satisfaction will be evaluated by using the Denture Satisfaction Index (DSI; (25)), a 10mm visual analogue scale (VAS)-based questionnaire. This index evaluates ease of cleaning, general satisfaction, speech, comfort, aesthetics, stability, chewing ability, function and the general oral condition.

    Time frame: 6 months

  7. Denture Satisfaction Index

    Denture satisfaction will be evaluated by using the Denture Satisfaction Index (DSI; (25)), a 10mm visual analogue scale (VAS)-based questionnaire. This index evaluates ease of cleaning, general satisfaction, speech, comfort, aesthetics, stability, chewing ability, function and the general oral condition.

    Time frame: 1 year

  8. Implant Survival and Success

    Implant Survival and Success rate will be defined as followed: I - Success (optimum health) II - Satisfactory survival III - Compromised survival IV - Failure (clinical absolute failure) Any of following Additionally, fractured implants will be considered as failures, except fracture of the implant apex during implant placement. Any dental implant showing excessive bone loss, such as radiolucency or infection, shall be treated in the manner best suited to the well-being of the subject, including treatment to save the dental implant.

    Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year

  9. Prosthetic Success and Survival

    One of the following: * Patrix fracture * Dislodged, worn or loose matrix housing * Matrix replacement * Matrix fracture * Fracture of the implant-supported overdenture * Fracture of the acrylic above a patrix * Fracture of denture teeth * Relining of implant overdenture A failure will be defined as an event leading to the loss of the reconstruction and need for the fabrication of a new overdenture.

    Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Chewing efficiency

    Chewing efficiency will be evaluated with a two-color mixing ability test (28), where participants are given a two-colored chewing gum and are asked to chew the specimen for 20 chewing cycles. The resulting bolus is evaluated visually on a reference scale and opto-electronically using the Variance of Hue (VOH) (Halazonetis et al., 2013).

    Time frame: 1-year

  2. Maximum voluntary bite force (MBF)

    The Gnathodynamometer DMD® (Kratos Equipamentos Industriais Ltda., Cotia - SP, Brazil) is utilized. It is a digital force gauge with an 8.6mm thick bite element. MBF is assessed bilaterally between the upper and lower first molar. The participant's task is to bite as hard as possible on the force gauge, but to stop clenching when she/ he starts feeling uncomfortable. A contra-lateral stabilizing element with identical thickness is used to preclude denture dislodgement. The peak force of three recordings carried out on each side will be used for analysis.

    Time frame: 1-year

  3. Plaque index

    Measured at 4 sites per implant (mesial/distal/buccal/oral), according to the modified Mombelli's Plaque Index (Mombelli et al., 1987)

    Time frame: 1-year

  4. Bleeding on probing

    Measured at 4 sites per implant (mesial/distal/buccal/oral), the following clinical parameters will be evaluated at baseline and each follow-up visit. Dichotomous score: yes x no

    Time frame: 1-year

  5. Pocket probing depth

    Will be measured from the peri-implant mucosal margin to the bottom of the sulcus or pocket

    Time frame: 1-year

  6. Width of the keratinized tissue

    The width of the keratinized tissue around implants will be measured and expressed in mm at the buccal sideated through a simple rule of three with NIH Image J V1.44.

    Time frame: 1-year

  7. Peri-implant bone loss

    Intra-oral radiographs are exported and 4 parallel lines are drawn corresponding to the shoulder and the apical end of the implant on Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). One line each is placed at the shoulder and apical end of the implant and the other two at the defined bone level on the mesial and distal aspect of the implant. Knowing the implant length and using the implant-shoulder as a reference point, bone levels can be calculated through a simple rule of three with NIH Image J V1.44.

    Time frame: 1-year

  8. Implant Stability - Final insertion torque

    : after the implant is installed in its final position, the final torque of insertion will be recorded (Newtons per centimeter), as displayed during insertion with the handpiece, or measured using the manual calibrated torque gauge ratchet. * Peak insertion torque: maximum achieved torque value during the implant insertion (in Newtons per centimeter). * Periotest value: values will be categorized using the Periotest value ranges: 8 to 0: Good osseointegration; the implant can be loaded; 01 to 09: clinical examination is required; loading of the implant might or might not be possible, depending on implant type and clinical situation; 10 to 50: osseointegration is insufficient, the implant cannot be loaded.

    Time frame: 1-year

  9. Implant Stability - Final insertion torque

    After the implant is installed in its final position, the final torque of insertion will be recorded (Newtons per centimeter), as displayed during insertion with the handpiece, or measured using the manual calibrated torque gauge ratchet.

    Time frame: During surgery

  10. Implant Stability - Peak insertion torque

    The maximum achieved torque value during the implant insertion (in Newtons per centimeter).

    Time frame: During surgery

  11. Implant Stability - Periotest value

    the Periotest® hand piece (Periotest®, Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) will be used with the head of the patient stabilized so that the implants were perpendicular to the floor, and the Periotest will be held parallel to the floor. The test point will be in the most gingival region of the Optiloc attachment, and each measurement will be performed 3 times and the average value will be recorded for each implant. In addition, values will be categorized using the Periotest value ranges: * -8 to 0: Good osseointegration; the implant can be loaded; * 01 to 09: clinical examination is required; loading of the implant might or might not be possible, depending on implant type and clinical situation; * 10 to 50: osseointegration is insufficient, the implant cannot be loaded.

    Time frame: During surgery

  12. Implant Stability - Periotest value

    the Periotest® hand piece (Periotest®, Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) will be used with the head of the patient stabilized so that the implants were perpendicular to the floor, and the Periotest will be held parallel to the floor. The test point will be in the most gingival region of the Optiloc attachment, and each measurement will be performed 3 times and the average value will be recorded for each implant. In addition, values will be categorized using the Periotest value ranges: * -8 to 0: Good osseointegration; the implant can be loaded; * 01 to 09: clinical examination is required; loading of the implant might or might not be possible, depending on implant type and clinical situation; * 10 to 50: osseointegration is insufficient, the implant cannot be loaded.

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Leles CR, de Paula MS, Curado TFF, Silva JR, Leles JLR, McKenna G, Schimmel M. Flapped versus flapless surgery and delayed versus immediate loading for a four mini implant mandibular overdenture: A RCT on post-surgical symptoms and short-term clinical outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Sep;33(9):953-964. doi: 10.1111/clr.13974. Epub 2022 Jul 26. PubMed 35818640 ↗
  • Lemos CA, Verri FR, Batista VE, Junior JF, Mello CC, Pellizzer EP. Complete overdentures retained by mini implants: A systematic review. J Dent. 2017 Feb;57:4-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.009. Epub 2016 Nov 22. PubMed 27888049 ↗
  • Curado TFF, Silva JR, Nascimento LN, Leles JLR, McKenna G, Schimmel M, Leles CR. Implant survival/success and peri-implant outcomes of titanium-zirconium mini implants for mandibular overdentures: Results from a 1-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Aug;34(8):769-782. doi: 10.1111/clr.14102. Epub 2023 May 31. PubMed 37254798 ↗
  • Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Patient's oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction with implant supported overdentures -a systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019 Oct-Dec;9(4):340-346. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.07.004. Epub 2019 Aug 17. PubMed 31508300 ↗
  • Muller F, Duvernay E, Loup A, Vazquez L, Herrmann FR, Schimmel M. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures in very old adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res. 2013 Dec;92(12 Suppl):154S-60S. doi: 10.1177/0022034513509630. Epub 2013 Oct 24. PubMed 24158342 ↗
  • Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002 Jul-Aug;17(4):601-2. No abstract available. PubMed 12182304 ↗
  • Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Muller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009 Aug 22;207(4):185-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728. PubMed 19696851 ↗
  • Maniewicz S, Duvernay E, Srinivasan M, Perneger T, Schimmel M, Muller F. Effect of implant-supported mandibular overdentures versus reline on masticatory performance and salivary flow rates in very old adults-A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jan;30(1):59-67. doi: 10.1111/clr.13392. Epub 2018 Dec 30. PubMed 30500094 ↗
  • Khalid T, Yunus N, Ibrahim N, Saleh NBM, Goode D, Masood M. Assessment of masticatory function of mandibular implant-supported overdenture wearers: A 3-year prospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Dec;124(6):674-681. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.005. Epub 2020 Jan 15. PubMed 31952858 ↗
  • Boven GC, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Improving masticatory performance, bite force, nutritional state and patient's satisfaction with implant overdentures: a systematic review of the literature. J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Mar;42(3):220-33. doi: 10.1111/joor.12241. Epub 2014 Oct 13. PubMed 25307515 ↗
  • van Kampen FM, van der Bilt A, Cune MS, Fontijn-Tekamp FA, Bosman F. Masticatory function with implant-supported overdentures. J Dent Res. 2004 Sep;83(9):708-11. doi: 10.1177/154405910408300910. PubMed 15329377 ↗
  • Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Gironi Carnevale UA, Lanza M, Lanza A. The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019 Jan;63(1):15-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.08.006. Epub 2018 Sep 28. PubMed 30269880 ↗
  • Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Capcha EB, Lanza A, Cristache CM, Vernal R, Cafferata EA. Patient satisfaction and survival of maxillary overdentures supported by four or six splinted implants: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2021 May 8;21(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01572-6. PubMed 33962612 ↗
  • Boven GC, Speksnijder CM, Meijer HJA, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM. Masticatory ability improves after maxillary implant overdenture treatment: A randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Apr;21(2):369-376. doi: 10.1111/cid.12721. Epub 2019 Feb 11. PubMed 30741469 ↗
  • Enkling N, Saftig M, Worni A, Mericske-Stern R, Schimmel M. Chewing efficiency, bite force and oral health-related quality of life with narrow diameter implants - a prospective clinical study: results after one year. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Apr;28(4):476-482. doi: 10.1111/clr.12822. Epub 2016 Mar 24. PubMed 27009835 ↗
  • Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Willings M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The effectiveness of immediate, early, and conventional loading of dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Nov-Dec;22(6):893-904. PubMed 18271370 ↗
  • von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008. PubMed 18313558 ↗
  • Allen F, McMillan A. Food selection and perceptions of chewing ability following provision of implant and conventional prostheses in complete denture wearers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Jun;13(3):320-6. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130313.x. PubMed 12010164 ↗
  • Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, Savard A, Feine JS. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Jul-Aug;16(4):390-6. PubMed 12956494 ↗
  • Heydecke G, Locker D, Awad MA, Lund JP, Feine JS. Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Jun;31(3):161-8. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2003.00029.x. PubMed 12752541 ↗
  • Souza RF, Patrocinio L, Pero AC, Marra J, Compagnoni MA. Reliability and validation of a Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for assessing edentulous subjects. J Oral Rehabil. 2007 Nov;34(11):821-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01749.x. PubMed 17919248 ↗
  • Awad MA, Feine JS. Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998 Dec;26(6):400-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1998.tb01978.x. PubMed 9870539 ↗
  • Schimmel M, Christou P, Herrmann F, Muller F. A two-colour chewing gum test for masticatory efficiency: development of different assessment methods. J Oral Rehabil. 2007 Sep;34(9):671-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01773.x. PubMed 17716266 ↗
  • Halazonetis DJ, Schimmel M, Antonarakis GS, Christou P. Novel software for quantitative evaluation and graphical representation of masticatory efficiency. J Oral Rehabil. 2013 May;40(5):329-35. doi: 10.1111/joor.12043. Epub 2013 Mar 4. PubMed 23452188 ↗
  • Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008 Mar;17(1):5-15. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181676059. PubMed 18332753 ↗
  • Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch E Jr, Land NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1987 Dec;2(4):145-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302x.1987.tb00298.x. No abstract available. PubMed 3507627 ↗
  • Bragger U. Use of radiographs in evaluating success, stability and failure in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000. 1998 Jun;17:77-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00125.x. No abstract available. PubMed 10337315 ↗
  • Bragger U, Gerber C, Joss A, Haenni S, Meier A, Hashorva E, Lang NP. Patterns of tissue remodeling after placement of ITI dental implants using an osteotome technique: a longitudinal radiographic case cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Apr;15(2):158-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00988.x. PubMed 15008927 ↗
  • Monje A, Ravida A, Wang HL, Helms JA, Brunski JB. Relationship Between Primary/Mechanical and Secondary/Biological Implant Stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Suppl;34:s7-s23. doi: 10.11607/jomi.19suppl.g1. PubMed 31116830 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 13, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06081192
Lead sponsor
Universidade Federal de Goias
Collaborators
ITI International Team for Implantology, Switzerland, Institut Straumann AG
Responsible party
Cláudio Rodrigues Leles (Full Professor, Universidade Federal de Goias) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 13, 2023
Start date
Jan 2024 (estimated)
Primary completion
Aug 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 13, 2023

Study contacts

Cláudio R Leles, PhD
Contact
claudio_leles@ufg.br
+5562981113302
Cláudio R Leles, PhD
principal investigator · Universidade Federal de Goias

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Oct 2023. 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