Accuracy of Scannable Healing Abutments for Implant Impressions

Accuracy of Implant Impression Techniques Using Scannable Healing Abutments Versus Conventional Methods. A Controlled Clinical Trial

Status

Completed

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT07393269

Enrollment

Registered

2026-02-06

Start date

2025-07-02

Completion date

2025-11-10

Last updated

2026-02-06

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

Conditions

Partially Edentulous Maxilla, Mandible

Keywords

Dental Impression Technique, Intraoral Scanning, Partial Edentulism, Digital Dentistry, Dental Implants

Brief summary

This prospective controlled clinical trial evaluates the three-dimensional positional accuracy of implant-level impressions obtained using scannable healing abutments compared with conventional open-tray and closed-tray impression techniques in partially edentulous patients with unilateral free-end saddle situations.

Detailed description

Accurate transfer of implant position is critical for achieving passive fit of implant-supported prostheses. This study compares the trueness of implant impressions obtained using a digital workflow based on scannable healing abutments with conventional open-tray and closed-tray impression techniques. Twenty-two partially edentulous patients with unilateral distal extension ridges will undergo all three impression techniques. Three-dimensional deviations will be quantified using best-fit superimposition and root mean square analysis, with the open-tray technique serving as the reference standard.

Interventions

PROCEDUREDigital implant impression using scannable healing abutments

Digital acquisition of implant position using intraoral scanning of scannable healing abutments following second-stage surgery.

PROCEDUREOpen-tray implant impression

Conventional open-tray implant-level impression using splinted impression copings and polyvinyl siloxane material.

PROCEDUREClosed-tray implant impression

Conventional closed-tray implant-level impression using transfer copings and polyvinyl siloxane material.

Study design

Allocation

NON_RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

CROSSOVER

Primary purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Masking

NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

40 Years to 70 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Partially edentulous patients with unilateral free-end saddle (Kennedy Class II) * Adequate bone for two implants * Good systemic health * Ability to provide informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* Active periodontal disease * Poor oral hygiene * Parafunctional habits * Temporomandibular disorders * Heavy smoking (\>10 cigarettes/day)

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Three-dimensional implant positional accuracy (RMS deviation)	Periprocedural (single assessment, 1 week after second-stage implant surgery)	Root mean square (RMS) deviation (µm) between test impressions and the open-tray reference model using 3D metrology software.

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Comparison of implant positional accuracy between impression techniques	Periprocedural (single assessment, 1 week after second-stage implant surgery)	Pairwise comparison of RMS deviation values among scannable healing abutment, open-tray, and closed-tray impression techniques

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 7, 2026