Accuracy of Implant Impression Techniques Using Scannable Healing Abutments Versus Conventional Methods. A Controlled Clinical Trial
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Sponsor
- Sherif Aly Sadek
- Enrollment
- 22
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Three-dimensional implant positional accuracy (RMS deviation)
Overview
Brief Summary
This prospective controlled clinical trial evaluates the three-dimensional positional accuracy of implant-level impressions obtained using scannable healing abutments compared with conventional open-tray and closed-tray impression techniques in partially edentulous patients with unilateral free-end saddle situations.
Detailed Description
Accurate transfer of implant position is critical for achieving passive fit of implant-supported prostheses. This study compares the trueness of implant impressions obtained using a digital workflow based on scannable healing abutments with conventional open-tray and closed-tray impression techniques. Twenty-two partially edentulous patients with unilateral distal extension ridges will undergo all three impression techniques. Three-dimensional deviations will be quantified using best-fit superimposition and root mean square analysis, with the open-tray technique serving as the reference standard.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Non Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Crossover
- Primary Purpose
- Diagnostic
- Masking
- None
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 40 Years to 70 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- •Partially edentulous patients with unilateral free-end saddle (Kennedy Class II)
- •Adequate bone for two implants
- •Good systemic health
- •Ability to provide informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
- •Active periodontal disease
- •Poor oral hygiene
- •Parafunctional habits
- •Temporomandibular disorders
- •Heavy smoking (\>10 cigarettes/day)
Arms & Interventions
Scannable Healing Abutment Digital Impression
Intraoral digital impression using scannable healing abutments and an intraoral scanner.
Intervention: Digital implant impression using scannable healing abutments (Procedure)
Open-Tray Conventional Impression
Conventional splinted open-tray implant impression using polyvinyl siloxane.
Intervention: Open-tray implant impression (Procedure)
Closed-Tray Conventional Impression
Conventional closed-tray implant impression using polyvinyl siloxane.
Intervention: Closed-tray implant impression (Procedure)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Three-dimensional implant positional accuracy (RMS deviation)
Time Frame: Periprocedural (single assessment, 1 week after second-stage implant surgery)
Root mean square (RMS) deviation (µm) between test impressions and the open-tray reference model using 3D metrology software.
Secondary Outcomes
- Comparison of implant positional accuracy between impression techniques(Periprocedural (single assessment, 1 week after second-stage implant surgery))
Investigators
Sherif Aly Sadek
Associate Professor
Cairo University