Skip to content

Abutment Analysis of Metallic Denture Frameworks in Mandibular Kenedy Class III Cases

Abutment Health and Occlusal Analysis of CAD-CAM and Conventional Metallic Partial Denture Framework in Mandibular Kenedy Class III Cases: A Randomized Cross Over Clinical Trial

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07215208
Enrollment
22
Registered
2025-10-10
Start date
2025-10-31
Completion date
2026-01-31
Last updated
2025-10-10

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

Conditions

Occlusion, Prosthesis Durability

Brief summary

This study is aimed to compare CAD/CAM (digitally fabricated) metallic partial denture frameworks to conventionally fabricated metallic partial denture frameworks in mandibular Kennedy class-III arches in terms of abutment health and occlusal analysis

Detailed description

Traditional metallic partial dentures with cobalt-chromium frameworks and clasps considered a reliable choice because they're affordable, durable and have a resistance to distortion. However, the fabrication of traditional metallic partial dentures involves several manual steps, like pouring of the stone casts, surveying the hard tissue and soft tissue undercuts to choose the best path of insertion, and meticulously waxing each component (major and minor connectors, rests, clasps, and denture base retainers) directly onto the cast. This hands-on process can result in some fabrication errors, which by in turn can increase the stresses on the teeth supporting the denture (abutments) and even other non-abutment teeth. CAD/CAM technology is increasingly being used for the fabrication of metallic partial denture frameworks; it has been highlighting in several investigations. The workflow starts with an intra oral digital scan of the oral cavity, to generate a 3D digital model, that allows for electronic surveying. The metallic partial denture frameworks are then designed virtually using specialized software, after which a wax pattern is created by milling or rapid prototyping. Then the wax pattern would be casted conventionally into metallic partial denture frameworks. The key advantages are simplifying the fabrication process, enhance the accuracy of fit, and reduce the stresses on abutment teeth, significant time savings, and reduction of the potential errors inherent in traditional multi-step lab procedures

Interventions

OTHERCAD/CAM metallic partial denture frameworks

The CAD/CAM workflow starts with scanning of the physical model (master cast) to create a 3D virtual representation. Dental professionals then digitally analyze this virtual model and design the metallic partial denture frameworks using specialized computer software. Once the design is finalized, a wax pattern of the framework is either milled or 3D printed. Then proceeding with this wax pattern to fabricate the final metal partial denture framework, either by conventional casting process, or milling of the metallic framework

OTHERConventional metallic partial denture frameworks

The metallic partial denture frameworks have proven to be affordable and convenient treatment option for partially dentate patients for it is rigidity and durability. It can be used in thin sections and provide high strength and stiffness. However, metallic partial denture frameworks also come with several drawbacks. A significant concern for some patients is the metallic display, which can lead to poor esthetics. Other disadvantages include increased prosthesis weight, a potential metallic taste, and a tendency for plaque accumulation. Additionally, they can induce stresses on the abutment teeth

Sponsors

Cairo University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

Operators, participants, and statistician will be blinded.

Intervention model description

\- Prospective, randomized controlled, two-phase, crossover trial.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with unilateral bounded saddles in the mandible (Kennedy class III). * Opposing dentition is fully intact or restored. * Sufficient inter-arch space. * Angle's class I maxilla-mandibular relationship.

Exclusion criteria

* Periodontal affection of the abutment teeth. * Skeletal mal-relation. * Unmotivated patients to maintain adequate oral hygiene to follow up. * Patients with neuromuscular and Psychiatric disorders. * Systematic disease affecting bone and periodontal health. * Insufficient inter-arch space. * Patients with physical disabilities that could affect follow up.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Abutment health mobility3 monthsPeriotest, Periotest value (PTV) which ranges from -8 to +50

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Gingival bleeding index3 monthsLöe and Silness Gingival Index (GI), GI scale (scores) 0 -3 (with 0 being normal and 3 being severe inflammation)

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Occlusal Analysis3 monthsOccluSense Device, Force distribution per tooth

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026