Digitalism, Prosthesis User
Conditions
Keywords
digital dentistry, intraoral scanner, implant scanbody
Brief summary
The goal of this clinical trials to evaluate precision of different scanbodies in same participant group. The main guestion it aim to answer is: 1\. Are the precision of the three different scanbodies used in direct digitalization the same for the produce of implant-supported prostheses? Participants are healty and have short edentulous span in posterior region that will receive implant-supported prostheses.
Detailed description
Twenty-five patients receiving two implant supported restorations in treatment of short-span partial edentulism were enrolled into the study. Three different scanbodies, original, non-original and generic, were employed for direct digitalization technique. Full contour PMMA restorations were CAD/CAM fabricated from each digital record, and were evaluated in terms of implant fit, axial- and occlusal-contact. Additionally, patient's impressions for digitalization and delivery procedures were recorded using a visual analog scale. Scanbody scan recordings were subjected to reverse engineering for analytical evaluation of 3D virtual implant positioning.
Interventions
DEVICE3Shape
original (Straumann), non-original (Medentika) and generic scan-bodies (3Shape) were utilized for direct digitalization using intraoral scanner with image stitching algorithm. Full contour temporary restorations were fabricated from each digital record, and were evaluated in terms of clinical and analytical.
Sponsors
Hacettepe University
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Masking description
Scan post information used for direct digitalization was not shared with the patient during the procedure. The investigator, who performed the statistical analysis, did not learn the scan post, in which the primary and secondary data were collected, until all evaluations were completed.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Be willing to voluntarily participate in the study after reading the informed consent form. * Adult patient over 18 years of age who has completed growth and development * Partial edentulism in the functional region for a two-implant-supported restoration with two or three occlusal members * Having a fixed dentition in the opposing arch * The occlusal relationship between the jaws does not require vertical and horizontal prosthetic treatment. * Having bone-level implants placed with straightforward surgery according to the SAC classification system \[248\] and without advanced surgical technique
Exclusion criteria
* Not voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study after reading the informed consent form * Having one or more of the conditions for which implant treatment is strictly contraindicated (patients who have received radiation therapy, bone cancer, metabolic disorders) * Having systemic (steroid therapy, uncontrolled diabetes, immunological disorders, pregnancy) risk factors for implant treatment * Having local (periodontal discomfort, bruxism, poor oral hygiene) risk factors for implant treatment
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical fit | 1 year | Compatibility between the manufactured restorations and implant 0: incompatible 1: compatible |
| occlusal contact | 1 year | Restoration occlusal contact with the opposite teeth. I.Occlusal Contacts: 1. Perfect: No need for occlusal contact adjustment, 2. Acceptable: Minor occlusal contact adjustment is needed, 3. Correction needed: Major occlusal contact adjustment is needed. |
| interface contact | 1 year | Restoration interface contacts with the adjacent teeth. II. Interface Contacts: 1. Perfect: The floss is inserted into the interdental space only under pressure, 2. Acceptable (1): The contact is slightly tight but the floss is placed under pressure, 3. Acceptable (2): The contact is slightly weak, the floss is placed in one stroke without applying pressure, 4. Correction required: Contact is poor and 100 μm metal sheet passes easily. |
| Analytical measurement of 3D implant positions | 1 year | Analytical outcomes were obtained from scan bodies using reverse engineering software used to calculate 3D implant positions. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Visual analog scale | 1 year | Patient impression was done in two clinical stages, registration and restoration delivery, and a scale of five points from 0 to 100 was used. A value of 0 is set to be straightforward and 100 complex. During the registration phase, the patient's anxiety level about the direct digitalization procedure, which was explained in detail before registration, was determined. After the registration, it was asked to evaluate the difficulty of the process. The time spent for adjustment during the restoration delivery phase and the comfort feeling of the restoration after adjustment were evaluated. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed