Dental ImplantNCT05361226
The Accuracy of s-CAIS Compared With c-LIS
A study testing Accuracy measurement in people with Dental Implant, run by Mahidol University at 1 site in Thailand.
Trial summary
To compare the static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and conventional laboratory-guided implant surgery (c-LIS) in terms of accuracy for single tooth replacement in posterior areas. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Implant
- What is being tested?
- Accuracy measurement
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteThailand
- Study dates
- 9 Jul 2019to 30 Oct 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 25 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients had a partially edentulous ridge in the premolar-molar region with existing two-sided interproximal as well as antagonistic contacts
- Patients had healthy periodontal status and adequate keratinized gingiva at the edentulous space
Who cannot join
- - Patients have any local and systemic diseases considered as contraindications for dental implant treatment.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Thailand1 site
Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University
Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400
About this study
Official title: The Accuracy of Static Computer-aided Implant Surgery Compared With Conventional Laboratory-guided Implant Surgery for Single-tooth Replacement: A Randomized Controlled Trial
To compare the static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and conventional laboratory-guided implant surgery (c-LIS) in terms of accuracy for single tooth replacement in posterior areas.
Read the detailed description
There was still a lack of evidence in randomized clinical studies about the accuracy measurement comparing digital and laboratory workflows with tooth-supported templates for single implant cases in the posterior regions. Therefore, this present study's primary investigation was to perform accuracy measurement comparing digital and laboratory workflows with tooth-supported templates for single implant cases in the posterior regions. The secondary investigation was to find the effect of several factors on the accuracy of implant placement in these areas.
- Conditions
- Dental Implant
- Being tested
- Accuracy measurement
- Keywords
- Clinical Research, static computer aided implant surgery, accuracy, Dental implant
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Accuracy measurementOther
Three months following the implant placement, patients were called back to the implant clinic to record the actual implant position with the digital impression technique. Full mouth scans were done by using the intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The surface scans were then exported as an STL file and were imported to coDiagnostiX software. The "Treatment evaluation tool" function tool was used to measure the accuracy of the implant placement which measured the amount of deviation of the placed implant from the planned position. The outcomes were generated into three main parameters.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| s-CAIS (static computer aided implant surgery) | Experimental | For the s-CAIS group, Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and full-arch optical scan were performed to provide digital information for implant planning software (coDiagnostix 9, Dental Wings GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany). The virtual implant was set on a three dimensional (3D) virtual jaws according to the prosthetically driven protocol by one postgraduate dentist and was confirmed by one experienced dentist. Static surgical template covering on occlusal part of 4 teeth anteroposteriorly was then fabricated via 3D printing machine (surgical guide resin, Form 2, Formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA). This surgical template would be used during surgery. Receives: Other: Accuracy measurement |
| c-LIS (conventional laboratory-guided implant surgery) | Active comparator | For the c-LIS group, a radiographic template (ORTHO Plast, prominent®, Chonburi, Thailand) was fabricated covering on occlusal part of 4 teeth anteroposteriorly according to diagnostic wax-up on the study model. A radiographic marker (gutta percha) was then filled in the created hole of the template and for used while taking CBCT image to verify marker position.
Next, a study model was scanned by laboratory surface scan (D900m, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The STL file was imported to 3D printing devices and the resin model was fabricated (Dental LT clear resin, Form 2, Formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA).
Next, the same template that had been used for CBCT was used to place implant replicas in a resin model. The position of the implant replicas in the models were assumed as pre-operative planned implant position. Receives: Other: Accuracy measurement |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The accuracy of implant placement
Patients were called back to record the actual implant position with the the intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The surface scans were then exported as an STL file and were imported to coDiagnostiX software. Those postoperative surface scans were merged with the preoperative surface scan in each group protocols. The "Treatment evaluation tool" function tool was used to measure the accuracy of the implant placement which measured the amount of deviation of the placed implant from the planned position. The outcomes were generated into three main parameters which were Angular deviation, Coronal global deviation and Apical global deviation.
Angular deviation = the amount of angle(°), in which the actually placed implant deviated from the virtually planned implant in 3D.
Coronal/ Apical global deviation = the amount of distance(mm), in which the actually placed implant deviated from the virtually planned implant at the coronal/ apical position in 3D.
Measured: Three months after implant placement
Secondary outcomes (1)
Factors influencing the accuracy of implant placement
Various factors influencing the accuracy of implant placement were also analyzed including the type of arch (Maxilla vs. Mandible), side of the arch (Left vs. Right), implant location (Premolar vs. Molar), implant diameter (WN vs. RN), implant length (8 vs. 10 mm), ridge morphology (Broad (≥8mm) vs. Narrow (˂8mm), cortical bone thickness and cortical interference. The thickness of the cortical bone was evaluated at the center of the implant after the planned implant position was completely set in the coDiagnostiX program. If any parts of the planned implant involving against any cortical bone walls, it would count as having a cortical interference.
Measured: Three months after implant placement
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 May 2022
- Study start9 Jul 2019
- Primary completion30 Jul 2020
- Study completion30 Oct 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (38)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dental ImplantStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mahidol UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Forty participants were allocated to two study groups via the coin-tossing technique.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mahidol University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05361226
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2019/DT071-1
- Status last verified
- Apr 2022
- First submitted
- 10 Apr 2022
- Last updated
- 4 May 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J, Wismeijer D, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH, Tahmaseb A. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:92-109.
PubMed 19885437D'haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):121-133. doi: 10.1111/prd.12175.
PubMed 28000275Hultin M, Svensson KG, Trulsson M. Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:124-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02545.x.
PubMed 23062137Younes F, Eghbali A, De Bruyckere T, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J. A randomized controlled trial on the efficiency of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Feb;30(2):131-138. doi: 10.1111/clr.13399. Epub 2019 Jan 7.
PubMed 30578650Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Apr;23(4):416-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02337.x. Epub 2011 Oct 24.
PubMed 22092586Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Giansanti M, Calasso S. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical template. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):655-63.
PubMed 22616060Zhao XZ, Xu WH, Tang ZH, Wu MJ, Zhu J, Chen S. Accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery by a CAD/CAM and laser scanning technique. Chin J Dent Res. 2014;17(1):31-6.
PubMed 25028687Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:416-435. doi: 10.1111/clr.13346.
PubMed 30328191Gallardo YNR, da Silva-Olivio IR, Gonzaga L, Sesma N, Martin W. A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes on Patients Rehabilitated with Complete-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses According to the Time of Loading. J Prosthodont. 2019 Dec;28(9):958-968. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13104. Epub 2019 Oct 18.
PubMed 31433096Geng W, Liu C, Su Y, Li J, Zhou Y. Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Jun 15;8(6):8442-9. eCollection 2015.
PubMed 26309497Pozzi A, Polizzi G, Moy PK. Guided surgery with tooth-supported templates for single missing teeth: A critical review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9 Suppl 1:S135-53.
PubMed 27314119Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:25-42. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2.
PubMed 24660188Di Giacomo GA, Cury PR, de Araujo NS, Sendyk WR, Sendyk CL. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol. 2005 Apr;76(4):503-7. doi: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.4.503.
PubMed 15857088Ersoy AE, Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, McGlumphy EA. Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. J Periodontol. 2008 Aug;79(8):1339-45. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.080059.
PubMed 18672982Choi W, Nguyen BC, Doan A, Girod S, Gaudilliere B, Gaudilliere D. Freehand Versus Guided Surgery: Factors Influencing Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement. Implant Dent. 2017 Aug;26(4):500-509. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000620.
PubMed 28731896
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 May 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Accuracy of Static Computer-aided Implant Surgery Compared With Conventional Laboratory-guided Implant Surgery for Single-tooth Replacement: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05361226
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2019/DT071-1
- Conditions
- Dental Implant
- Keywords
- Clinical Research, static computer aided implant surgery, accuracy, Dental implant
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mahidol UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 Jul 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jul 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Oct 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 May 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To compare the static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and conventional laboratory-guided implant surgery (c-LIS) in terms of accuracy for single tooth replacement in posterior areas.
Detailed description
There was still a lack of evidence in randomized clinical studies about the accuracy measurement comparing digital and laboratory workflows with tooth-supported templates for single implant cases in the posterior regions. Therefore, this present study's primary investigation was to perform accuracy measurement comparing digital and laboratory workflows with tooth-supported templates for single implant cases in the posterior regions. The secondary investigation was to find the effect of several factors on the accuracy of implant placement in these areas.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Forty participants were allocated to two study groups via the coin-tossing technique.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| s-CAIS (static computer aided implant surgery) | Experimental | Other: Accuracy measurementFor the s-CAIS group, Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and full-arch optical scan were performed to provide digital information for implant planning software (coDiagnostix 9, Dental Wings GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany). The virtual implant was set on a three dimensional (3D) virtual jaws according to the prosthetically driven protocol by one postgraduate dentist and was confirmed by one experienced dentist. Static surgical template covering on occlusal part of 4 teeth anteroposteriorly was then fabricated via 3D printing machine (surgical guide resin, Form 2, Formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA). This surgical template would be used during surgery. |
| c-LIS (conventional laboratory-guided implant surgery) | Active comparator | Other: Accuracy measurementFor the c-LIS group, a radiographic template (ORTHO Plast, prominent®, Chonburi, Thailand) was fabricated covering on occlusal part of 4 teeth anteroposteriorly according to diagnostic wax-up on the study model. A radiographic marker (gutta percha) was then filled in the created hole of the template and for used while taking CBCT image to verify marker position. Next, a study model was scanned by laboratory surface scan (D900m, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The STL file was imported to 3D printing devices and the resin model was fabricated (Dental LT clear resin, Form 2, Formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA). Next, the same template that had been used for CBCT was used to place implant replicas in a resin model. The position of the implant replicas in the models were assumed as pre-operative planned implant position. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patients had a partially edentulous ridge in the premolar-molar region with existing two-sided interproximal as well as antagonistic contacts
- Patients had healthy periodontal status and adequate keratinized gingiva at the edentulous space
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- - Patients have any local and systemic diseases considered as contraindications for dental implant treatment.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy measurementThree months following the implant placement, patients were called back to the implant clinic to record the actual implant position with the digital impression technique. Full mouth scans were done by using the intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The surface scans were then exported as an STL file and were imported to coDiagnostiX software. The "Treatment evaluation tool" function tool was used to measure the accuracy of the implant placement which measured the amount of deviation of the placed implant from the planned position. The outcomes were generated into three main parameters. | Other | c-LIS (conventional laboratory-guided implant surgery), s-CAIS (static computer aided implant surgery) |
Primary outcome
The accuracy of implant placement
Time frame: Three months after implant placement
Patients were called back to record the actual implant position with the the intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The surface scans were then exported as an STL file and were imported to coDiagnostiX software. Those postoperative surface scans were merged with the preoperative surface scan in each group protocols. The "Treatment evaluation tool" function tool was used to measure the accuracy of the implant placement which measured the amount of deviation of the placed implant from the planned position. The outcomes were generated into three main parameters which were Angular deviation, Coronal global deviation and Apical global deviation. Angular deviation = the amount of angle(°), in which the actually placed implant deviated from the virtually planned implant in 3D. Coronal/ Apical global deviation = the amount of distance(mm), in which the actually placed implant deviated from the virtually planned implant at the coronal/ apical position in 3D.
1 secondary outcome
Factors influencing the accuracy of implant placement
Time frame: Three months after implant placement
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 May 2022.
- Background: PubMed 19885437Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J, Wismeijer D, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH, Tahmaseb A. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:92-109.
- Background: PubMed 28000275D'haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):121-133. doi: 10.1111/prd.12175.
- Background: PubMed 23062137Hultin M, Svensson KG, Trulsson M. Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:124-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02545.x.
- Background: PubMed 30578650Younes F, Eghbali A, De Bruyckere T, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J. A randomized controlled trial on the efficiency of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Feb;30(2):131-138. doi: 10.1111/clr.13399. Epub 2019 Jan 7.
- Background: PubMed 22092586Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Apr;23(4):416-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02337.x. Epub 2011 Oct 24.
- Background: PubMed 22616060Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Giansanti M, Calasso S. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical template. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 May-Jun;27(3):655-63.
- Background: PubMed 25028687Zhao XZ, Xu WH, Tang ZH, Wu MJ, Zhu J, Chen S. Accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery by a CAD/CAM and laser scanning technique. Chin J Dent Res. 2014;17(1):31-6.
- Background: PubMed 30328191Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:416-435. doi: 10.1111/clr.13346.
- Background: PubMed 31433096Gallardo YNR, da Silva-Olivio IR, Gonzaga L, Sesma N, Martin W. A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes on Patients Rehabilitated with Complete-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses According to the Time of Loading. J Prosthodont. 2019 Dec;28(9):958-968. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13104. Epub 2019 Oct 18.
- Background: PubMed 26309497Geng W, Liu C, Su Y, Li J, Zhou Y. Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Jun 15;8(6):8442-9. eCollection 2015.
- Background: PubMed 27314119Pozzi A, Polizzi G, Moy PK. Guided surgery with tooth-supported templates for single missing teeth: A critical review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9 Suppl 1:S135-53.
- Background: PubMed 24660188Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:25-42. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Dental Implant
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Association Between Peri-implant Tissue Health and Crown Shape: a Prospective Study
Dental Implants
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
S-TiUltra Implant Study
Missing Tooth/Teeth
Recruiting
Surgical Guide Versus Freehand Dental Implants Placement
Dental Implant Placement
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Diagnostic Accuracy of Large Language Models for Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss on Panoramic Radiographs
Peri-implantitis, Alveolar Bone Loss
Recruiting
Dental Implant Healing With TNF-Alpha Inhibitors
Dental Implants, TNF-alpha Inhibitors
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Accuracy measurement in people with Dental Implant, run by Mahidol University at 1 site in Thailand.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 May 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Thailand. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The accuracy of implant placement (time frame: Three months after implant placement). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05361226, which also lists 38 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 May 2022.