Partially Edentulous Maxilla, Single Tooth Lost
Conditions
Keywords
guided implant, surgical guide, dental implant, dental trephination, guided trephination
Brief summary
This study will be initiated to compare the accuracy of implant placement using the guided trephination drilling protocol and the guided conventional drilling protocol.
Detailed description
This study will be conducted to compare the accuracy of implant placement using the guided trephination drilling protocol and the guided conventional drilling protocol. the patients with a single missing tooth will be assigned to one group ( trephination drilling / conventional drilling ).the preoperative virtual planning and fabrication of a surgical guide will be made for each patient. after implant placement according to each group, postoperative (CBCT ) will be performed to compare the virtual implant position and the actual implant position.
Interventions
PROCEDUREguided trephination-based drilling protocol
the implant site preparation in this group will be done by guided trephination protocol which uses the surgical guide to trephine the implant site then remove the guide and continue the drilling in a freehand manner
PROCEDUREguided Conventional drilling-based protocol
the implant site preparation in this group will be done by a guided conventional drilling protocol which uses the surgical guide to guide the sequential drills up to the final drill
Sponsors
Mohammed Ramadan
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
the outcome assessor is not involved in the study. he doesn't know the type of intervention.
Intervention model description
guided dental implant placement through guided trephine-based implant site preparation
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Single missing maxillary premolar or molar tooth. 2. Both genders aged from 20-50 years. 3. Patients should be systematically free from any disease as according to Cornell Medical Index-Health Questionnaire. (Pendleton et al,.2004) 4. Mesio-distal space ≥ 7 mm. 5. Bone width in bucco-lingual direction ≥ 6 mm. 6. Uniform alveolar ridge with no undercuts. 7. Present mesial and distal sound neighboring teeth. 8. At least 4 natural remaining teeth on the same arch. 9. Mouth opening at least 30 mm.
Exclusion criteria
1\) Pregnant and lactating females. 2) Smokers. 3) Poor oral hygiene. 4) Vulnerable groups of patients' e.g. (handicapped patients). \-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Angular deviation. | immediately after the intervention | measure the Angular deviation of the implant between the virtual planning position and the actual implant position |
| Horizontal deviation at apex of the implant. | immediately after the intervention | measure the Horizontal deviation at apex of the implant between the virtual planning position and the actual implant position |
| •Horizontal deviation at implant shoulder. | immediately after the intervention | measure the Horizontal deviation at the implant shoulder between the virtual planning position and the actual implant position |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The duration of the surgery | during the surgery | measure the time of the surgery from the first drill to the implant placement |
| Satisfaction assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale | immediately after the intervention | measure the patient satisfaction score on terms of pain and discomfort from 1 to 10 |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed