Prosthesis Durability
Conditions
Keywords
digital impression, conventional impression
Brief summary
evaluation and comparison of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression for full arch screw retained prosthesis for edentulous maxilla.
Detailed description
Each patient received 6 implants in the maxillary ridge (widely distributed across the arch) in the following positions: central incisors, canines/first premolar teeth and first molar teeth aided by surgical stent. then each patient received 2 types of impression techniques Technique 1 :conventional impression conventional open tray impression technique with splinted transfers using vinylpolysiloxane and Technique2 : Digital impression taken using original scan bodies torqued to the implants .three dimensional accuracy of impression techniques was evaluated using linear measurements and 3D deviation between the two techniques was measured.
Interventions
OTHERimpression techniques for implant used for maxillary screw retained hybrid prosthesis
conventional splinted open tray impression technique was done for maxillary implants to fabricate screw retained hybrid prosthesis and digital intra oral impression was done for the same patients after screwing scan bodies to the implants intra orally. evaluation of accuracy and 3D deviation between the two techniques was done
Sponsors
Mansoura University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
the conventional open tray splinted impression technique and the digital intraoral impression technique were done for each patient
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
50 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* The patients were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: 1. Completely edentulous maxillary and mandibular ridges 2. Healthy ridge covered by normal oral mucosa and free from any ridge flabbiness. 3. All of the patients were dissatisfied with the retention and stability of their maxillary conventional dentures and expressed a strong desire for a more stable prosthesis. 4. Sufficient bone quantity and quality in the front and posterior maxillary regions, as determined by preoperative CBCT, to accommodate six implants with a diameter of at least 3.5 mm and a length of at least 10 mm. 5. Enough restorative space (from the mucosa covering the crest of the maxillary residual ridge to the occlusal plane) to allow the fixed prosthesis to be constructed ,preliminary jaw relationship revealed this. 6. It's been at least a year since the last extraction.
Exclusion criteria
<!-- --> 1. Systemic diseases that may alter tissue response to implantation and affects osseointegration (radiation, diabetes, osteoporosis, bleeding disorders or hepatic patients) 2. Long term immunosuppressive and corticosteroid drug therapy. 3. Patient with abnormal habits as clenching and bruxism. 4. Smoking patients. 5. Patients with problems in TMJ. 6. Neuromuscular diseases.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| accuracy of impression technique | immediately after the intervention/procedure | deviation measurements digitally |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| passivity of final restoration | immediately after the intervention/procedure | Clinical measurement of prosthesis passivity using single screw test of Sheffield. |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed