Conventional Impressions Versus Digital Impression Techniques for Implant Supported Screw Retained Prosthesis

The purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of traditional and digital implant level impression procedures by using three-dimensional superimposition analysis , and evaluate the passive fit of screw- retained implant supported restorations fabricated using conventional and digital impression techniques in bilateral distal extension cases (class I kennedy classification)

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Partial Edentulism Class 1

Age range

30 year–55 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Wafaa youssif El ashry

Tanta, 3111, Egypt

About this study

Eight patients who had missing all mandibular posterior teeth except first premolars were included in this study. In each patient, 4 implants were placed, 2 in each side to support 3 units screw retained zirconia restorations. Three months after implant placement, each patient underwent two implant level impression techniques (n=8) for each technique: Conventional implant impressions CII (pick-up, splinted transfers), and digital implant impressions DII were captured with TRIOS 3 Shape intraoral optical scanner. In this study, digital impression was considered as a reference data.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

All participants have sufficient bone length and width for implant insertion.
General health of the patients was evaluated by taking a full medical history to ensure that these patients were free from any systemic conditions that would have impaired implant osseointegration
Good oral hygiene
Sufficient inter-arch spaces
The opposing arch was almost dentulous, and any missing teeth were restored using a fixed partial denture.

Exclusion criteria

parafunctional habits
Heavy smoking
Those patients with systemic diseases that may influence soft or hard tissue healing.
Patients with a history of radiation therapy in the head and neck region.
Patients with a history of radiation therapy in the head and neck region.

Treatment and study plan

implant placement

Procedure

4 implants were placed , 2 implants in each side of the patient mouth opposite lower second premolar and second molar

Primary outcomes

Accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques in partially edentulous patient

Time frame: 12 months

GOM Inspect 2016, Gom GmbH,) that was used to superimpose the Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets of conventional open tray impression technique onto the STL file of the reference (digital implant impression technique) to assess the accuracy and calculate the three-dimensional deviations of scan bodies in color- coding map in micrometers (µm)

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Tanta University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Implant Impression Techniques in Bilateral Distal Extension Cases

Important dates

Study start: 2020
Primary completion: 2021
Study completion: 2022
First posted: Jun 22, 2023
Registry last updated: Jun 22, 2023

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.

Completed