AzTrials
AzTrials

Edentulous JawNCT06393582

Accuracy Evaluation of Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study

A study testing Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions and Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using intraoral scanners in people with Edentulous Jaw and Dental Implants, run by University of Sharjah.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The aims of this clinical study are: 1) to compare the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for implant impressions; 2) to assess the passive fit of the prosthesis constructed from the most accurate impression. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Edentulous Jaw, Dental Implants, Edentulous Mouth
What is being tested?
Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions and Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using intraoral scanners
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
30 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
1 May 2024to 1 Sep 2024
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 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Edentulous patients who received implant surgery and indicated for implant-supported fixed prosthesis.
  • Patients rehabilitated with fixed full-arch interim prostheses with 4 - 6 implants

Who cannot join

  • Patients with severe systemic diseases, dementia, or muscle tremors will be excluded from the study.

Trial locations and contacts

No sites are listed yet.

Ahmed Aziz, PhD contact

+971 65057312

a.aziz@sharjah.ac.ae

About this study

Official title: Accuracy Evaluation of Full-arch Implant Impressions Using Different Workflows: A Prospective Study

The aims of this clinical study are: 1) to compare the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for implant impressions; 2) to assess the passive fit of the prosthesis constructed from the most accurate impression.

Thirty edentulous patients who received 4 - 6 implant and indicated for implant-supported fixed prosthesis will be invited. Full-arch conventional and digital impressions will be made for each patient. Accuracy evaluation will be made and the prosthesis will be constructed from the most accurate impression. Passive fit of the zirconia implant-supported prostheses will be verified at the try-in stage clinically and radiographically.

Read the detailed description

The aims of this clinical study are: 1) to compare the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for implant impressions; 2) to assess the passive fit of the prosthesis constructed from the most accurate impression.

Study design The ethical approval will be obtained from the research ethics board. Thirty edentulous patients who received 4 - 6 implant and indicated for implant-supported fixed prosthesis will be invited. All participants will require to read and sign the informed consent form before initiation of the treatment. The impression procedures will be performed by one experienced prosthodontist. The prostheses will be evaluated by an independent prosthodontist.

Sample size calculation The sample size is calculated based on the tests for paired means. With α= 0.05, β= 0.2, mean of distance deviation, IOS= 17 μm, and standard deviation= 34 μm, a sample size of 25 is necessary, which would have the power of 90% to detect the difference. Therefore, a total of 25 patients will be invited to participate in this clinical study. This sample size is more than previous studies evaluating IOS and SPG workflows (15 - 17 patients). However, it has been reported that the dropout rate in clinical studies is 20%. For this reason, a total of 30 patients will be invited to compensate for the anticipated loss of patients.

Treatment procedure Conventional impression Abutment-level impression copings will hand tightened onto the abutments and splinted with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Pattern Resin; GC), and allowed to polymerize. A custom open-tray splinted impressions will be made with a polyether material (Impregum Penta Soft; 3M ESPE). After 5 minutes, the impression copings will be unscrewed from the implants, and the impression will be removed. Type IV dental stone (dentostone 220; dentona AG) will be poured into the impression to generate a definitive cast. The models will be digitalized with a high-resolution laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape A/S) with an accuracy of 4 mm to obtain the 3D data of the models in standard tessellation language (STL) format.

Digital impressions After tightening the scan bodies (CARES® RC Mono Scan body, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), the intraoral scanner will be used according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Three scanners will be used since they have different ways of obtaining 3D images and working principles. The technology of Trios scanner (TRIOS 4, 3Shape A/S) depends on confocal microscopy, ultrafast optical scanning and auto-correction; Cerec Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) depends on optical triangulation and confocal microscopy; Medit i700 (Medit, Seoul, Korea) depends on 3D in-motion video technology, 3D full-color streaming capture and advance algorithm to stitch images. The scanning path will begin with the occlusal surfaces, then turned to the palatal or lingual surfaces, and lastly to the buccal surfaces of the scan bodies. Then, removing the scan body with a trim tool from the occlusal view and exporting the STL file.

Accuracy measurement All STL files generated from the intraoral scan (STL digital) and the STL files generated from cast digitization (STL conventional) will be imported into 3D inspection software (Geomagic, 3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC) for merging and evaluation of 3D deviations. Following software best-fit alignment, the 3D comparison will be used to evaluate the 3D deviations between the digital files (STL files from IOS and digitized conventional working casts) limited to the area of scan bodies. Assessment of the root man square (RMS) deviations will be the primary outcome. The effect of the type of edentulous jaw (maxilla vs mandible) on the 3D deviations will be the secondary outcome, assessing whether the jaw has an effect on the amount of 3D deviations.

Prostheses fabrication The final restorative phase included definitive with one-piece, screw-retained zirconia implant-supported prostheses. The prosthesis will be constructed from the most accurate workflow after confirmation of the passive fit at the try-in appointment. In addition, the fit of the zirconia implant-supported prostheses will be confirmed prior to delivery, clinically and radiographically.

Statistical analysis Statistical analysis will be performed by SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Data will be presented as mean, median, and standard deviation. The normality of data will be tested by the Shapiro-Wilk test. The generalized linear mixed model will be used to compare the influence of scan bodies and impression copings on the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions. The fixed factors will be the 'IOS', 'type of scan body', 'type of impression coping' and their interaction. The precision will be calculated using the gamma distribution with the log-link function. The p values will be adjusted by the Bonferroni method for pairwise comparison (>.05).

All clinical outcomes will be assessed by one examiner. Since some patients will received more than one implant, linear mixed effect models (LMM) will be fitted using restricted maximum likelihood estimations to assess the effect of the follow-up time on repeated measurements of marginal bone loss, plaque index, calculus index, gingival index, bleeding index, and probing depth while accounting for within-person variability. LMM calculates means with standard errors as it estimates variability across multiple samples of a population (i.e., the different patients, implants, and repeated measures). The multivariable models included the fixed effects of the baseline value and follow-up in months. The interaction between the baseline and follow-up value (baseline value*follow-up) will be tested for model improvement. The included random effect will be the patient (i.e., random intercepts). The random effect of the follow-up (i.e., random slopes) will be also tested. Statistical comparisons will be performed using the type III analysis of variance test with Satterthwaite's method to estimate the degrees of freedom. A significance level of p< 0.05 will be chosen for all the analyses.

Being tested
Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions, Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using intraoral scanners
Medical subject headings
Jaw, Edentulous, Mouth, Edentulous

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Accuracy of full-arch implant impressionsProcedure or surgery

    Conventional impressions for full-arch implant impressions will be digitized and used as a reference for comparison.

  • Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using intraoral scannersProcedure or surgery

    Digital scanners impressions for full-arch implant impressions will be compared to the reference (conventional) impressions

Study groups in NCT06393582
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Accuracy of full-arch implant impressionsExperimentalConventional and digital impressions will be made for each patient to compare the accuracy.
Receives: Procedure: Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions; Procedure: Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using intraoral scanners

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for implant impressions

    Following the best-fit algorithm, the accuracy will be measured in terms of 3D comparison to evaluate the 3D deviations between the digital files (STL files from IOS and digitized conventional working casts) limited to the area of scan bodies.

    Measured: 6 months

  2. The passive fit of the prosthesis constructed from the most accurate impression

    Clinical assessment of the prosthesis at the try-in stage using one screw test.

    Measured: 6 months

  3. The passive fit of the prosthesis

    Radiographic assessment of the prosthesis by periapical radiograph

    Measured: 6 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted1 May 2024
  2. Study start1 May 2024 (estimated)
  3. Primary completion2 Aug 2024 (estimated)
  4. Study completion1 Sep 2024 (estimated)

Resources

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
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Model description
One group of patients will receive both conventional and digital impressions
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
30 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06393582
Sponsor's protocol ID
REC-23-05-12-02
Status last verified
Apr 2024
First submitted
23 Apr 2024
Last updated
1 May 2024
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No: Data will be shared upon reasonable request

Publications

  • Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Oct;100(4):285-91. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5.

    PubMed 18922257
  • Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010 May;12 Suppl 1:e63-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00167.x. Epub 2009 May 8.

    PubMed 19438937
  • Vigolo P, Millstein PL. Evaluation of master cast techniques for multiple abutment implant prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(4):439-46.

    PubMed 8270314
  • Al Quran FA, Rashdan BA, Zomar AA, Weiner S. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques. Quintessence Int. 2012 Feb;43(2):119-25.

    PubMed 22257873
  • Akalin ZF, Ozkan YK, Ekerim A. Effects of implant angulation, impression material, and variation in arch curvature width on implant transfer model accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jan-Feb;28(1):149-57. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2070.

    PubMed 23377060
  • Papaspyridakos P, Hirayama H, Chen CJ, Ho CH, Chronopoulos V, Weber HP. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Sep;27(9):1099-105. doi: 10.1111/clr.12695. Epub 2015 Sep 16.

    PubMed 26374268
  • Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):111-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x. Epub 2012 Feb 22.

    PubMed 22353208
  • Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type. Int J Dent. 2018 Jun 4;2018:3761750. doi: 10.1155/2018/3761750. eCollection 2018.

    PubMed 29971107

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions and Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using intraoral scanners in people with Edentulous Jaw and Dental Implants, run by University of Sharjah.

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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 May 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

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?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Ahmed Aziz, PhD (+971 65057312, a.aziz@sharjah.ac.ae), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for implant impressions (time frame: 6 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT06393582, which also lists 8 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 1 May 2024.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in