Tooth loss K08
Conditions
Interventions
Group 1: Replacement of one or more teeth with a dental implant. The implantation should be carried out with a dynamic navigation procedure. The marker is digitally constructed and inserted on a print
Sponsors
Private Praxis
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: - Switching gaps in the upper and/or lower jaw side tooth area - Free-end situations in the upper and/lower jaw side tooth area - Marker stencil must be tooth-supported. For this purpose, more than 5 remaining teeth must be present in the jaw to be implanted. - The patient has good oral hygiene and compliance. - A pre-implantological hygienal phase must be completed. - Consent has been given by the patient.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: - Persons under 18 or persons who are not able to do business - Untreated acute periodontitis with pocket depths > 4 mm. - Heavy smokers (more than 10 zig./d) • Taking bisphosphonates - Pregnant women - Alcohol or drug addicts - Patients with infectious diseases such as hepatitis or HIV or AIDS - Patients with severe diabetes m. - Planned immediate load
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Accuracy examination of implant insertion The design of the study and the implementation of clinical implementation and evaluation, including statistical procedures, is based on three studies already carried out or still in progress: 1. Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of stencil-guided implantation using a new non-X-ray-based matching method. Vote of the Ethics Committee Ulm No. 339/14 of 12.04.2014. Publication: Schnutenhaus et al. (2016) Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016;121:e72-e79. Schnutenhaus et al. (2018): 3D accuracy of implant positions in template-guided implant placement as a function of the remaining teeth and the surgical procedure: a retrospective study. Clinical Oral Investigations [doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2339-8. [Epub ahead of print]] 2. Randomised controlled clinical trial on the success of implants after Socket preservation compared to a control group. Vote of the Ethics Committee Ulm No. 41/14 of 06.05.2014 Publication: Schnutenhaus et al. (2018) Accuracy of the match between CBCT and model scan data in template-guided implant planning: a prospective controlled clinical study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12614 Schnutenhaus et al. (2020) Alveolar ridge preservation as influencing factor in the transfer accuracy of the static guided implant placement: a prospective clinical trial. BMC Oral Health https://doi.org/10.1186<7s12903-020-01155-x | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Technical problems. Implementation of planning, indication restrictions, functionality and time required of the process | — |
Countries
Germany
Contacts
Public ContactSigmar Schnutenhaus
Private Praxis
Outcome results
None listed