ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06679894Updated Nov 8, 2024

Evaluation of Implant Stability Changes in Sites Prepared with Different Osseodensification Techniques: a Prospective Observational Clinical Study

An observational study in Edentulous and Alveolar Process Atrophy, sponsored by International Piezosurgery Academy. Completed at 1 site in Italy. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-11-08.

Sponsored by International Piezosurgery Academy · Observational

Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
12
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Where this study stands

Counted across the records on this site · 2026-11-14

Among 11 studies in Mouth, Edentulous with a site in Italy — 1 open to participants now, 1 under way, none of them phase 3. Mouth, Edentulous · Italy.

Started
2024
with 2 others
Observational
5 of 11
none open now
Registered
9th of 11
by date
Lead sponsor
2 of 11
International Piezosurgery Academy

Among the 11 studies in Mouth, Edentulous with a site in Italy, this one is one of 3 that started in 2024, is one of 5 observational ones, and was the 9th registered.

Mouth, Edentulous

124 studies on the registry are indexed under Mouth, Edentulous; 17 are open to participants now.

Browse Mouth, Edentulous studies →

Open to participants now

1 of the 11 studies in Mouth, Edentulous with a site in Italy is open now. Recruiting first, the newest first:

A study can be open while its sites in Italy have not opened yet or have stopped. Only those recruiting at a site in Italy →

Who these studies take

Of the 11 Mouth, Edentulous studies recruiting now, 6 (55%) set no upper age limit and 5 (45%) stop at 75 or younger; none take children under 18; 6 take healthy volunteers.

This study: 18 Years and older · all sexes · healthy volunteers too.

The full table on the hub →

This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.

Was this useful?
Watch this landscapeDownload CSVNarrow it in search →With an account: a weekly mail of what changed among 11 studies in Mouth, Edentulous with a site in Italy, or all of them as a file.
02

Study summary

The goal of this observational study is to compare, within a cohort of patients requiring rehabilitation in two different sites of the premolar area in the upper maxilla, the primary and secondary stability of implants placed in sites prepared using a magnetic mallet and osseodensification burs.

Read the detailed description

The primary outcome measures included implant primary stability, assessed through insertion torque and ISQ (Implant Stability Quotient).

Secondary outcome measures were implant secondary stability pattern during the initial 90 days post-implant placement (ISQ), implant survival after one year, the time required for each implant site preparation and any complications or adverse events.

As an additional outcome of this study, we aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between the instrument utilized for implant site preparation and early marginal bone loss. Marginal bone levels were measured at three time points: immediately after surgery (T0), upon delivery of prosthetic rehabilitation (T1), and after one year of loading (T2). The distance between implant platform and bone crest was measured at each time interval, on both mesial and distal aspects of the implant. A positive value was assigned when the bone crest was coronal to the implant platform, whereas a negative value was assigned when the bone crest was apical to the implant platform.

Study design: Observational study of a prospective non-profit cohort.

Study population: The study will be conducted in an outpatient hospital setting.

Sample size calculation: Data from the literature were used regarding insertion torque with the use of the magnetic mallet and osseodensification burs. On average, these data ranged from 50 to 70 Ncm for the magnetic mallet and 35 to 59 Ncm for the osseodensification burs. Using a statistical power of 80%, an alpha error of 0.05, and a beta error of 0.2, the sample size was calculated to be six patients for the experimental group (magnetic mallet - MM) and six patients for the control group (osseodensification burs - OD).

Enrollment procedure: All patients who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be enrolled in the study following the administration of the Information Sheet and the acquisition of informed consent.

Patients seeking implant-supported rehabilitation due to the absence of at least two teeth were evaluated with a periapical radiograph at each selected site to assess the adequacy of residual bone height. If the available bone height appeared to be sufficient, a second-level radiographic exam, a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), was performed to evaluate whether the bone volume was adequate for supporting implant rehabilitation.

Surgical phase: After performing local anaesthesia (mepivacaine HCl 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated. The surgeon, who conducted all the procedures, initiated the first implant site preparation using osteotomes and electrified mallet (Magnetic Mallet, Metaergonomica, Milan, Italy) (test group).

Meanwhile, a second operator began timing the duration of surgery from the initial bone contact of the first osteotome to the placement of the implant.

All the procedures strictly followed the manufacturer's recommendations: initially, a pilot osteotome (100-P) was used. Osteotomes with gradually increasing diameters were employed until the final diameter of 3.2 mm was reached. Subsequently, a 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.

Right after the suture of the first surgical site, the site preparation of the control group began.

After performing local anaesthesia (mepivacaine HCl 2% with epinephrine 1:100,000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated; the surgeon initiated the preparation using osseodensification burs (Densah, Versah, Jackson, USA). Another operator started timing at the beginning of the procedure and concluded when the implant was placed in the final position.

The experimental sites were prepared using osseodensification burs (Densah, Versah) at a rotation speed of 1200 rpm. The implant beds were equal in dimension and diameter to those prepared with the magnetic hammer, 8.5 mm in height and 3.2 mm in diameter. Subsequently, a 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.

After surgery, a radiographic control was conducted to evaluate the correct positioning of the implants.

Once completed, a blinded operator measured ISQ values of each implant from two different directions: vestibular-palatal and mesio-distal.

Each measurement was taken at abutment level three times for each direction, and their averages were used for the statistical analysis.

The values were collected using a Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) device (Osstell, Göteborg, Sweden) with the appropriate transducer for the selected abutment (Smartpeg # 74, Osstell, Göteborg, Sweden).

After surgery, a check-up visit was scheduled after one week, when the sutures were removed, soft tissue healing was evaluated, and ISQ was measured as in the first time.

The subsequent check-ups were scheduled at 14 days, 21 days, 28 days, 60 days, 90 days and in each meeting, the same parameters were re-evaluated.

All the implants were restored with screw-retained single metal-ceramic crowns four months after surgery and then followed up for at least for 12 months after prosthetic loading. Two additional check-ups were scheduled for radiographic control after 6 months and 1 year.

Statistical plan: The statistical analysis will be performed by means of a computerized statistical package (SigmaStat 3.5, SPSS Inc., Germany). The data will be expressed as mean ± standard deviation and median (interquartile range), respectively, for parametric and non-parametric values.

03

Conditions studied

  • Edentulous
  • Alveolar Process Atrophy
04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

After investigating general and local anamnesis, which included evaluation of systemic illnesses and potential allergies, a dental visit was conducted to formulate a specific treatment plan.

If the patient was deemed eligible for the research protocol, an additional periapical radiograph was obtained for each selected site to assess the adequacy of residual bone height.

If the available bone height appeared to be sufficient, a second-level radiographic exam, a Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), was performed to evaluate whether the bone volume was adequate for supporting implant rehabilitation.

For patients requiring tooth extraction, this second assessment was performed after six months of healing after extraction.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age older than 18 years old;
  • Indication for an implant-supported rehabilitation in the upper premolar / first molar areas;
  • The area in which the implants will be placed must have had at least 6 months of healing;
  • No use of grafts or bone substitutes following tooth extraction;
  • Bone volume measuring at least 10 mm in height and 6 mm in width;
  • In case of two adjacent implants the distance between the natural teeth must be at least 14 mm, composed by twice the width of each implant (4 mm), the distance between them (at least 3 mm) and twice the distance between each teeth (at least 1,5 mm)
  • Bone quality belonging to class D3 or D4, following Misch classification
  • Absence or decision to not wear a removable prosthesis during the healing period;
  • Patients with good and stable oral hygiene;
  • Signed form.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Acute myocardial infarction within the previous six months;
  • Uncontrolled bleeding disorders;
  • Uncontrolled diabetes ( > 7.5%);
  • Radiotherapy in the head-neck area in the previous 48 months;
  • patients (es. AIDS / chemotherapy);
  • Current or previous treatment with antiresorptive drugs via intravenous injection;
  • Psychological or psychiatric disease;
  • Alcohol and /or drugs abuse;
  • Heavy smokers (more than 10 cigarettes / day);
  • Plaque index >20% and/or bleeding on probing >10%
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding patients;
  • Patients refusing to participate in follow-up checks.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

HbA1c

A blood test of average blood sugar over the past two to three months, given as a percentage or in mmol/mol. 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or more is the usual threshold for diabetes, normally confirmed by a second test.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
12 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Single tooth edentulism right

    single missed teeth

    Procedure: Implant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified mallet

  • single tooth edentulism left

    single missed tooth

    Procedure: Implant site preparation with osseodensification drills

Interventions

  • ProcedureImplant site preparation with osteotomes and electrified mallet

    Under local anesthesia (mepivacaine HCL 2% with epinephrine1:100.000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar crest. A pilot osteotome (100-P) was used to easily perforate the cortical plate. Subsequently, osteotomes with gradually increasing diameters were employed until the final diameter of 3.2 mm was reached. The sequence of osteotomes and their respective diameters were as follows: 1. Osteotome 100-P: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 2.2 mm; 2. Osteotome 160: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 2.8 mm; 3. Osteotome 200: At a height of 8.5 mm, the diameter was 3.2 mm. Implant (4.0x8.5 mm; Anyridge, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was positioned using a surgical motor. A 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.

  • ProcedureImplant site preparation with osseodensification drills

    Under local anesthesia (mepivacaine HCL 2% with epinephrine1:100.000), a minimally invasive full-thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar crest. The implant site preparation was realized using osseodensification burs at a rotation speed of 1200 rpm. The osseodensification burs sequence was as follows: 1. Initial pilot hole (rotated clockwise); 2. WT1828 bur (rotated counterclockwise), 3. WT2838 bur (rotated counterclockwise). Implant (4.0x8.5 mm; Anyridge, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was positioned using a surgical motor. A 3 mm high transepithelial abutment (OCTA, Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) was connected to it using a torque wrench and it was tightened to 30 Ncm. Single sutures in monofilament synthetic polypropylene 4.0 were performed to close flaps around the abutment.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Implant primary stability

    Insertion torque

    Time frame: At implant insertion

  2. Implant primary stability

    Resonance frequency

    Time frame: At implant insertion

Secondary outcomes

  1. Implant secondary stability

    Resonance frequency

    Time frame: 7 days after implant insertion

  2. Implant secondary stability

    Resonance frequency

    Time frame: 14 days after implant insertion

  3. Implant secondary stability

    Resonance frequency

    Time frame: 21 days after implant insertion

  4. Implant secondary stability

    Resonance frequency

    Time frame: 28 days after implant insertion

  5. Implant secondary stability

    Resonance frequency

    Time frame: 60 days after implant insertion

  6. Implant secondary stability

    Resonance frequency

    Time frame: 90 days after implant insertion

  7. Surgical time

    In seconds

    Time frame: The measurement began when the first pilot osteotome or drill was used and ended when the implant was placed.

Other outcomes

  1. Peri-implant marginal bone level stability

    The distance between implant platform and bone crest was measured at each time interval, on both mesial and distal aspects of the implant. A positive value was assigned when the bone crest was coronal to the implant platform, whereas a negative value was assigned when the bone crest was apical to the implant platform.

    Time frame: Immediately after surgery

  2. Peri-implant marginal bone level stability

    The distance between implant platform and bone crest was measured at each time interval, on both mesial and distal aspects of the implant. A positive value was assigned when the bone crest was coronal to the implant platform, whereas a negative value was assigned when the bone crest was apical to the implant platform.

    Time frame: Upon delivery of prosthetic rehabilitation (6 months after surgery)

  3. Peri-implant marginal bone level stability

    The distance between implant platform and bone crest was measured at each time interval, on both mesial and distal aspects of the implant. A positive value was assigned when the bone crest was coronal to the implant platform, whereas a negative value was assigned when the bone crest was apical to the implant platform.

    Time frame: One year of loading

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Piezosurgery Academy
    Parma, 43100, Italy
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Feb 2024 to primary completion in Jul 2024, 5 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Nov 5, 2024
First posted
Nov 8, 2024
StartActual
Feb 15, 2024
Primary completionActual
Jul 15, 2024
CompletionActual
Nov 5, 2024
Last update
Nov 8, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 8, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06679894
Lead sponsor
International Piezosurgery Academy
Collaborators
University of Trieste
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 8, 2024
Start date
Feb 15, 2024
Primary completion
Jul 15, 2024
Completion
Nov 5, 2024
Last update
Nov 8, 2024

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2024. 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