Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT04908618
NCT04908618
Unknown
Not Applicable

Comparing the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning of Ready Made Abutments Versus Intraoral Scan Bodies, Digitized Conventional Open and Closed Tray Implant Impression Techniques. A Controlled Clinical Trial

Mohamed Mahmoud Dohiem1 site in 1 country8 target enrollmentMay 20, 2021
ConditionsMissing Teeth

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Missing Teeth
Sponsor
Mohamed Mahmoud Dohiem
Enrollment
8
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
total deviation between digital impression and conventional impression
Last Updated
4 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

Intraoral oral scanning significantly improves scanning accuracy compared to digitized conventional impression techniques. The digitized closed tray impression technique showed significantly more accurate results than the digitized open-tray impression technique in partially edentulous patients.

Detailed Description

The study was a controlled clinical trial using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging and flapless surgical technique to place implants. Cone-beam Computed Topography of the patients was taken by x-ray machine to create a DICOM file of the patient. Intraoral scanning to create STL Files of the patient arches. Each patient had undergone four impression techniques: Conventional impression I; Closed tray impression technique, Conventional impression II; Splinted Open tray impression technique, Digital impression I; intraoral scanning of readymade abutments and Digital impression II; intraoral scanning using scan bodies. To digitize the Conventional impressions I and II, the readymade abutment was screwed on the analogs of the resultant stone casts, followed by digital scanning. Using the scan body, the exact implant position was determined and the implants were added using a digital library. The custom abutment was fabricated on the implant replica with the same readymade abutment measurement. Using the inspection software, a custom abutment was superimposed on each readymade abutment in all the readymade abutment scanning data with the best-fit algorithm. Then the custom abutment was saved as a new STL file for comparison. The digital impression I was set as a reference in all the coming comparisons. The comparison was done from different data acquisition techniques by using inspection software between Digital impression I, Digital impression II; and finally, with the digitized STL of the Conventional impressions I and II.

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
May 20, 2021
End Date
May 22, 2021
Last Updated
4 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Study Design
Parallel
Sex
Male

Investigators

Sponsor
Mohamed Mahmoud Dohiem
Responsible Party
Sponsor Investigator
Principal Investigator

Mohamed Mahmoud Dohiem

lecture prosthetic department zagazig university egypt

Zagazig University

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Partial edentulous patients
  • Sufficient bone volume to insert implants
  • Age ranging from 30-
  • Good oral hygiene.
  • Intact hard and soft tissues, including treated teeth decay and healed teeth extraction socket

Exclusion Criteria

  • • Completely edentulous patients
  • Patients with Bruxism or clinching
  • need for bone augmentation,
  • uncompensated diabetes mellitus,
  • immunocompromised status, radio- and/or chemotherapy
  • previous treatment with oral and/or intravenous aminobisphosphonates.
  • Undergoing orthodontic treatment;
  • Patients with metal crowns and any other metal materials on teeth
  • Patients with soft tissue lesions and postoperative scars on the palate

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

total deviation between digital impression and conventional impression

Time Frame: 1 day

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials