FindTrial
Sign In

To compare the correctness of 3D printed and conventionally prepared surgical guide in implant placement in bilateral lower back teeth region

Comparison of the accuracy of implant placed with 3D printed surgical guide and with conventionally prepared surgical guide:Split mouth

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2023/05/052587
Enrollment
12
Registered
2023-05-12
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-05-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K068- Other specified disorders of gingiva and edentulous alveolar ridge

Interventions

Intervention1: 3D printed surgical guide: Evaluation of accuracy provided by 3D printed guide in dental implant placement after 6 months. . Control Intervention1: Conventional resin based surgical gui

Sponsors

Jyoti Kutum
Lead Sponsor
CDER AIIMS
Collaborator

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Individual with adequate bone height and width after extraction and extraction completed at least 3 months prior to implant placement and also should have antagonist teeth present.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Individual with metabolic and systemic disease, history of irradiation in head and neck region, current alcohol or drug abuse, pregnancy or lactating mother and poor oral hygiene

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Comparison of accuracy of implant placed with 3D printed guide and conventional guideTimepoint: At 24 weeks—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Compare the difference in implant planning by conventional and digital methodTimepoint: Six months after first CBCT—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactVeena Jain

AIIMS, New Delhi

jainveena1@gmail.com9868187441

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026