Evaluation of the Accuracy of Full Digital Workflow for Guided Implant Surgery Using the R2 Gate Software

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Partially Edentulous Maxilla; Partially Edentulous Mandible

• Registration Number: NCT03814655
• Lead Sponsor: Concordia Dent Srl

Brief Summary

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the accuracy of a full digital workflow for dental implants insertion to a partially digital workflow, for a limited edentulous space (1 to 3 dental units), in the maxilla or mandible.

Detailed Description

Improvements of dental digital technologies are nowadays enabling clinicians to take the digital impressions of the dental arches, therefore avoiding the use of conventional impression materials. Digital impression procedures are claimed to be an approach to improve the accuracy of dental restorations by minimizing the error prone to conventional impression and gypsum model casting, enabling a high degree of standardization. Patients often prefer intraoral scan when compared to the traditional impression. Digital impression is also recommended when patients have remaining teeth that are extremely mobile or misaligned, due to the risk of exfoliation during the conventional impression procedure.

Despite its poor scientific and clinical evidence, the use of digital technologies into the daily practice registers a rapidly growing.

The precision of digital impressions depends on two different parameters: the resolution of the optical scanning system, and the precision of the matching algorithm which may significantly influence the precision of full arch scans. In order to minimize the effect of matching artifacts, only small parts of the dental arch in close vicinity of the teeth are recommended to be scanned.

For prosthetic restoration purpose, several studies regarding the accuracy of digital vs analogue impression have been performed, but none comparing the accuracy of digital vs partially digital workflow for prosthetically driven guided dental implant insertion.

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2019-01-20
• Study First Submitted QC: 2019-01-20
• Study First Posted: 2019-01-24
• Study Start: 2019-07-01
• Primary Completion: 2020-02-15
• Status Verified: 2020-07
• Study Completion: 2020-07-13
• Last Update Submitted: 2020-07-13
• Last Update Posted: 2020-07-14

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 54

Inclusion Criteria

• Kennedy Class III partially edentulism with 3 or less missing teeth,
• Good general health with no contraindications for implant surgery,
• Acceptance of dental implant treatment,
• Acceptance of 1 or 2 CBCTs.

Exclusion Criteria

• Limited bone volume with stadial bone graft requirement,
• Limited mouth opening (impossible to use the surgical stent),
• Parkinson disease (impossible to perform an accurate CBCT).

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Accuracy of dental implant insertion	6 weeks	Accuracy is described, by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 5725-1, through the use of two parameters: trueness and precision.; Trueness refers to the deviation between the actual dimension of the measured object and the resulting measurement, while precision indicates how closely repeated the measurements in a set are.

Trial Locations

Locations (2)

Concordia Dent Clinic; 🇷🇴 Bucharest, Romania

"Carol Davila"University of Medicine and Pharmacy; 🇷🇴 Bucharest, Romania