Dental Impression TechniqueNCT06592066
Digital Intraoral Scanning With and Without Prefabricated Landmarks Versus Conventional Impression Technique
A study testing Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies, Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks and Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression Technique in people with Dental Impression Technique, run by Ain Shams University.
Trial summary
The aim of this clinical trial is to evaluate the accuracy of digital implant impressions with or without prefabricated landmarks between scan bodies compared to conventional impression technique in mandibular full-arch implant cases. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 to 70 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Impression Technique
- What is being tested?
- Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies, Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks and Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression Technique
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 12 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 2024to Oct 2025
- 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 50 to 70 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- patients with completely edentulous mandible, non-smokers, 50-70 years in age, have Good oral hygiene and motivation.
Who cannot join
- patients with major systemic diseases that may affect osseointegration as uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, the need for extensive bone grafting in planned implant site, pregnancy, patients under bisphosphonate treatment, and limited mouth-opening for executing the guided implant surgery.
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
Official title: Accuracy of Digital Intraoral Scanning With and Without Prefabricated Landmarks Versus Conventional Impression Technique for Mandibular Implant Supported Full-Arch Prosthesis
The aim of this clinical trial is to evaluate the accuracy of digital implant impressions with or without prefabricated landmarks between scan bodies compared to conventional impression technique in mandibular full-arch implant cases.
Read the detailed description
Implant-supported full arch dental prostheses are crucial and reliable alternatives for individuals with missing teeth in their jaws. The initial phase in the production of implant-supported prostheses involves the impression-taking process. Inaccurate impressions can result in a misfit between the prosthesis and implant abutment, potentially causing both mechanical and biological complications that can adversely affect the long-term viability of the implants. Therefore, the precision of impressions is of utmost importance, particularly for prostheses supported by multiple implants.
The conventional approach to obtaining impressions for multiple implants involves the use of an open-tray technique, widely adopted in dental practice. In this method, impression copings are connected to prevent rotational movements, making it a preferable choice compared to the non-splinting technique. Nevertheless, this procedure is complex, less efficient, and demands considerable clinical expertise. It is advised for use by experienced dentists, as those lacking experience have shown a notably higher rate of unsuccessful outcomes when employing the splinting technique.6 Additionally, various factors, such as patients' pharyngeal reflex and the potential deformation of impression materials, can influence the accuracy of implant impressions in the conventional workflow.
With the advancement of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and digital technologies, the intraoral scanner (IOS) has gained popularity for capturing implant positions. In clinical practice, IOSs are valued for their comfort, efficiency, and practicality. However, it's important to note that IOSs cannot completely replace traditional methods. When it comes to implant-supported fixed dental prostheses, intraoral scanners can effectively be used for single- and three-unit implant scanning.
In a study from 2020, Revell et al. recommended specific scanners, such as Primescan, for complete-arch implant impressions due to their low deviation values at the implant platform level. Nevertheless, the accuracy of older models of intraoral scanners may not be reliable when scanning edentulous spaces with long inter-implant distances or fully edentulous jaws, particularly in the hands of inexperienced operators.
Previous research has introduced custom-designed scan bodies featuring an extensional structure to achieve dependable digital full-arch implant impressions. Typically, these platforms necessitate the use of custom-made scan bodies or a secondary scan to obtain mucosal information. In this context, this study is conducted to present newly designed prefabricated landmarks between the scan bodies to offer a solution for digital scanning of a mandibular full-arch implant. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning with or without prefabricated landmarks to conventional impression techniques in mandibular full-arch implant cases.
The null hypothesis posits that there would be no significant difference in accuracy between digital intraoral scanning with or without prefabricated landmarks between scan bodies and conventional impression techniques.
- Conditions
- Dental Impression Technique
- Being tested
- Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies, Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks, Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression Technique
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan BodiesDevice
intraoral scanning will be used to capture the positions of full-arch mandibular implants with the aid of scan bodies.
Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated LandmarksDevice
intraoral scanning will be used to capture the positions of full-arch mandibular implants with the aid of scan bodies with prefabricated landmarks in place.
Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression TechniqueDevice
Splinted open-top tray conventional impression technique will be preformed by using medium body silicone impression material.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Splinted Conventional Impression Technique | Active comparator | Splinted open tray conventional impression technique will be used for the mandibular full-arch implants, utilizing medium body impression material. Receives: Device: Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression Technique |
| Digital impression technique with scan bodies | Experimental | Digital impression technique will be employed for mandibular full-arch implants, using intraoral scanning with scan bodies to capture the implant positions. Receives: Device: Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies |
| Digital impression technique with scan bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks | Experimental | Digital impression technique will be employed for mandibular full-arch implants, using intraoral scanning with scan bodies with prefabricated landmarks to capture the implant positions. Receives: Device: Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The accuracy of digital intraoral scanning of full-arch mandibular implants.
Improving digital intraoral scanning of mandibular full-arch implant cases will facilitate the impression procedure, omit the drawback of conventional impression, improve the passive fit, and address the biomechanical considerations of the final-full arch prosthesis.
Measured: Baseline
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Sep 2024
- Study startSep 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completionSep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionOct 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (18)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dental Impression TechniqueStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Ain Shams 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
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 12 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ain Shams University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kirollos Sobhy Kamel Shanoudy, Ain Shams University
- Investigators
- Ingy A. Talaat, PHD, Study director, Ain Shams UniveristyNoha H. Nawar, PHD, Study director, Ain Shams UniveristyOmar A. El-Sadat, PHD, Study director, Ain Shams UniveristyOmnia M. Refai, PHD, Study director, Ain Shams Univeristy
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06592066
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- FDASU-Rec ID022403
- Status last verified
- Sep 2024
- First submitted
- 9 Sep 2024
- Last updated
- 19 Sep 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Papaspyridakos P, Mokti M, Chen CJ, Benic GI, Gallucci GO, Chronopoulos V. Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Oct;16(5):705-17. doi: 10.1111/cid.12036. Epub 2013 Jan 11.
PubMed 23311617Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Aug;90(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9.
PubMed 12886205Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:22-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x.
PubMed 23062125Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):836-45. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3625.
PubMed 25032763Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Apr;27(4):465-72. doi: 10.1111/clr.12567. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
PubMed 25682892Perez-Davidi M, Levit M, Walter O, Eilat Y, Rosenfeld P. Clinical accuracy outcomes of splinted and nonsplinted implant impression methods in dental residency settings. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(10):843-852. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a36323.
PubMed 27284582Miyoshi K, Tanaka S, Yokoyama S, Sanda M, Baba K. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Jan;31(1):74-83. doi: 10.1111/clr.13548. Epub 2019 Oct 28.
PubMed 31608509Nagata K, Fuchigami K, Okuhama Y, Wakamori K, Tsuruoka H, Nakashizu T, Hoshi N, Atsumi M, Kimoto K, Kawana H. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Sep 23;21(1):464. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01836-1.
PubMed 34556111Revell G, Simon B, Mennito A, Evans ZP, Renne W, Ludlow M, Vag J. Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Oct;128(4):632-638. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013. Epub 2021 Apr 6.
PubMed 33832761Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 March/April;34(2):366-380. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6855. Epub 2018 Dec 5.
PubMed 30521661Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Nov;128(5):1017-1023. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016. Epub 2021 Feb 25.
PubMed 33640093Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C. Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021 Apr;13(2):107-116. doi: 10.4047/jap.2021.13.2.107. Epub 2021 Apr 27.
PubMed 34025959Resende CCD, Barbosa TAQ, Moura GF, Tavares LDN, Rizzante FAP, George FM, Neves FDD, Mendonca G. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Feb;125(2):294-299. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011. Epub 2020 Feb 27.
PubMed 32115221Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Jul;31(7):625-633. doi: 10.1111/clr.13598. Epub 2020 Apr 3.
PubMed 32181919Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhou F, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved accuracy of digital implant impressions with newly designed scan bodies: an in vivo evaluation in beagle dogs. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Dec 7;21(1):623. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01986-2.
PubMed 34876122
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Sep 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Accuracy of Digital Intraoral Scanning With and Without Prefabricated Landmarks Versus Conventional Impression Technique for Mandibular Implant Supported Full-Arch Prosthesis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06592066
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FDASU-Rec ID022403
- Conditions
- Dental Impression Technique
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 12 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Ain Shams UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Sep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Oct 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 19 Sep 2024 (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.
The aim of this clinical trial is to evaluate the accuracy of digital implant impressions with or without prefabricated landmarks between scan bodies compared to conventional impression technique in mandibular full-arch implant cases.
Detailed description
Implant-supported full arch dental prostheses are crucial and reliable alternatives for individuals with missing teeth in their jaws. The initial phase in the production of implant-supported prostheses involves the impression-taking process. Inaccurate impressions can result in a misfit between the prosthesis and implant abutment, potentially causing both mechanical and biological complications that can adversely affect the long-term viability of the implants. Therefore, the precision of impressions is of utmost importance, particularly for prostheses supported by multiple implants.
The conventional approach to obtaining impressions for multiple implants involves the use of an open-tray technique, widely adopted in dental practice. In this method, impression copings are connected to prevent rotational movements, making it a preferable choice compared to the non-splinting technique. Nevertheless, this procedure is complex, less efficient, and demands considerable clinical expertise. It is advised for use by experienced dentists, as those lacking experience have shown a notably higher rate of unsuccessful outcomes when employing the splinting technique.6 Additionally, various factors, such as patients' pharyngeal reflex and the potential deformation of impression materials, can influence the accuracy of implant impressions in the conventional workflow.
With the advancement of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and digital technologies, the intraoral scanner (IOS) has gained popularity for capturing implant positions. In clinical practice, IOSs are valued for their comfort, efficiency, and practicality. However, it's important to note that IOSs cannot completely replace traditional methods. When it comes to implant-supported fixed dental prostheses, intraoral scanners can effectively be used for single- and three-unit implant scanning.
In a study from 2020, Revell et al. recommended specific scanners, such as Primescan, for complete-arch implant impressions due to their low deviation values at the implant platform level. Nevertheless, the accuracy of older models of intraoral scanners may not be reliable when scanning edentulous spaces with long inter-implant distances or fully edentulous jaws, particularly in the hands of inexperienced operators.
Previous research has introduced custom-designed scan bodies featuring an extensional structure to achieve dependable digital full-arch implant impressions. Typically, these platforms necessitate the use of custom-made scan bodies or a secondary scan to obtain mucosal information. In this context, this study is conducted to present newly designed prefabricated landmarks between the scan bodies to offer a solution for digital scanning of a mandibular full-arch implant. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning with or without prefabricated landmarks to conventional impression techniques in mandibular full-arch implant cases.
The null hypothesis posits that there would be no significant difference in accuracy between digital intraoral scanning with or without prefabricated landmarks between scan bodies and conventional impression techniques.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Splinted Conventional Impression Technique | Active comparator | Device: Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression TechniqueSplinted open tray conventional impression technique will be used for the mandibular full-arch implants, utilizing medium body impression material. |
| Digital impression technique with scan bodies | Experimental | Device: Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan BodiesDigital impression technique will be employed for mandibular full-arch implants, using intraoral scanning with scan bodies to capture the implant positions. |
| Digital impression technique with scan bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks | Experimental | Device: Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated LandmarksDigital impression technique will be employed for mandibular full-arch implants, using intraoral scanning with scan bodies with prefabricated landmarks to capture the implant positions. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- patients with completely edentulous mandible, non-smokers, 50-70 years in age, have Good oral hygiene and motivation.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- patients with major systemic diseases that may affect osseointegration as uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, the need for extensive bone grafting in planned implant site, pregnancy, patients under bisphosphonate treatment, and limited mouth-opening for executing the guided implant surgery.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodiesintraoral scanning will be used to capture the positions of full-arch mandibular implants with the aid of scan bodies. | Device | Digital impression technique with scan bodies |
| Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated Landmarksintraoral scanning will be used to capture the positions of full-arch mandibular implants with the aid of scan bodies with prefabricated landmarks in place. | Device | Digital impression technique with scan bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks |
| Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression TechniqueSplinted open-top tray conventional impression technique will be preformed by using medium body silicone impression material. | Device | Splinted Conventional Impression Technique |
Primary outcome
The accuracy of digital intraoral scanning of full-arch mandibular implants.
Time frame: Baseline
Improving digital intraoral scanning of mandibular full-arch implant cases will facilitate the impression procedure, omit the drawback of conventional impression, improve the passive fit, and address the biomechanical considerations of the final-full arch prosthesis.
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Sep 2024.
- Background: PubMed 23311617Papaspyridakos P, Mokti M, Chen CJ, Benic GI, Gallucci GO, Chronopoulos V. Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Oct;16(5):705-17. doi: 10.1111/cid.12036. Epub 2013 Jan 11.
- Background: PubMed 12886205Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Aug;90(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9.
- Background: PubMed 23062125Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:22-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x.
- Background: PubMed 25032763Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):836-45. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3625.
- Background: PubMed 25682892Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Apr;27(4):465-72. doi: 10.1111/clr.12567. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
- Background: PubMed 27284582Perez-Davidi M, Levit M, Walter O, Eilat Y, Rosenfeld P. Clinical accuracy outcomes of splinted and nonsplinted implant impression methods in dental residency settings. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(10):843-852. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a36323.
- Background: PubMed 31608509Miyoshi K, Tanaka S, Yokoyama S, Sanda M, Baba K. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Jan;31(1):74-83. doi: 10.1111/clr.13548. Epub 2019 Oct 28.
- Background: PubMed 34556111Nagata K, Fuchigami K, Okuhama Y, Wakamori K, Tsuruoka H, Nakashizu T, Hoshi N, Atsumi M, Kimoto K, Kawana H. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Sep 23;21(1):464. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01836-1.
- Background: PubMed 33832761Revell G, Simon B, Mennito A, Evans ZP, Renne W, Ludlow M, Vag J. Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Oct;128(4):632-638. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013. Epub 2021 Apr 6.
- Background: PubMed 30521661Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 March/April;34(2):366-380. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6855. Epub 2018 Dec 5.
- Background: PubMed 33640093Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Nov;128(5):1017-1023. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016. Epub 2021 Feb 25.
- Background: PubMed 34025959Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C. Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021 Apr;13(2):107-116. doi: 10.4047/jap.2021.13.2.107. Epub 2021 Apr 27.
Related trials for Dental Impression Technique
Recruiting
Passive Fit of Implant-Supported Frameworks: Digital vs Conventional Impressions
Dental Implants, Edentulous Jaw
RecruitingObservational study
Risk Factors Associated With Infraposition of Implant Supported Single Crowns in the Anterior Maxilla
Infraposition, Estethics
Recruiting
Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Denture Impressions: An In Vivo Study
Edentulism, Complete Dentures
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.
Ingy A. Talaat, PHD study director
Ain Shams Univeristy
Noha H. Nawar, PHD study director
Ain Shams Univeristy
Omar A. El-Sadat, PHD study director
Ain Shams Univeristy
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies, Digital Impression by using Intraoral Scanning of Scan Bodies with Prefabricated Landmarks and Splinted Open Top Tay Conventional Impression Technique in people with Dental Impression Technique, run by Ain Shams University.
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 1 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 19 Sep 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 Kirollos S. Shanoudy, PHD candidate (01280180780, KirollosShanoudy@dent.asu.edu.eg), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The accuracy of digital intraoral scanning of full-arch mandibular implants. (time frame: Baseline). 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 NCT06592066, which also lists 18 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 19 Sep 2024.