Passivity of Co-Cr Full-arch Maxillary Prostheses Via IOS
Conditions
Keywords
intraoral scanner, Auxiliary geometric device, All on 4 maxilla, modified screw test
Brief summary
Statement of the problem: Accurate digital scans of edentulous patients is challenging due to the absence of anatomic landmarks and geometric variations along the dental arch. Whether adding an auxiliary geometric device (AGD) will improve scanning is unclear. Purpose: The aim of the study is to analyze the accuracy of complete-arch digital scans of completely edentulous arches by placing auxiliary geometric device. Material and Methods: This in vivo study included patients who received complete arch screw-retained prostheses supported by 4 implants. Seven patients were randomly chosen; a dual scan protocol was performed for digital implant planning. Surgical guide and AGD were 3d printed. Three different data acquisition methods for each individual: Open tray impression digitized by extraoral scanner (EO Group), Intraoral scan by using Medit i600 with AGD (M600 Group), and Intraoral scan (CEREC Primescan; Dentsply Sirona) with AGD (PS Group). A reference model was formed to check the accuracy of these 3 data acquisitions. The framework was designed and printed for the 3 groups to be placed in the reference model to check the passivity. Passivity was tested through modified 1-screw test by measuring the marginal gap by using a digital camera (add magnification). Each framework was placed in the patient's mouth to re-check the passivity, the best one was delivered to the patient after 4 months after osteointegration of the implants.
Interventions
dental implant then open tray impression technique
OTHERAuxiliary Geometric Device (M600)
analyze the accuracy and passivity of complete-arch digital scans of completely edentulous arches by placing auxiliary geometric device
OTHERAuxiliary Geometric Device (PS)
analyze the accuracy and passivity of complete-arch digital scans of completely edentulous arches by placing auxiliary geometric device
Sponsors
Ain Shams University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
50 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* For a maxillary edentulous patient, the last extraction should be at least six months * Non-smokers * 50-70 years of age * Have good oral hygiene and motivation.
Exclusion criteria
* Patients with major systemic diseases that may affect osseointegration * Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus * The need for extensive bone grafting in the planned implant site * Pregnant female patient * Under bisphosphonate treatment * Limited mouth-opening for executing the guided implant surgery.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| estimate the marginal gap using digital camera | after 4 months after osteointegration of the implants | modified single screw test to check the passivity of the 3 frameworks in both the models and in the patient's mouth by radiograph |
Countries
Egypt
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORYasmin H Abd El Hay Dawoud
Ain Shams University
Outcome results
None listed