Comparison of Prosthetic Complications and Framework Misfit Among Different Cobalt-Chromium Framework Fabrication Techniques

Comparison of Prosthetic Complications and Framework Misfit Among Different Cobalt-Chromium Framework Fabrication Techniques in Maxillary and Mandibular Full-Arch Implant-Supported Acrylic Screw-Retained Restorations: A Randomized Clinical Study

Status

Completed

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT07489027

Enrollment

Registered

2026-03-23

Start date

2024-01-18

Completion date

2026-02-15

Last updated

2026-03-23

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

Conditions

Prosthesis (Internal) Complications

Keywords

Full arch prosthesis, Co-Cr framework, CAD/CAM milling, Selective laser melting

Brief summary

This randomized clinical study aimed to compare prosthetic complications and framework misfit associated with three different fabrication techniques of cobalt-chromium frameworks-conventional casting, CAD/CAM milling, and selective laser melting (SLM)-used in maxillary and mandibular full-arch implant-supported acrylic screw-retained restorations.

Interventions

DEVICEImplant supported prosthesis

All patients received maxillary and mandibular six implants to support a metal acrylic screw retained full-arch prosthesis

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

SINGLE (Subject)

Intervention model description

Patients were randomly allocated to three equal groups (n = 9) by simple randomization:Group I: Conventional cast Co-Cr framework, Group II: CAD/CAM milled Co-Cr framework, and Group III: SLM Co-Cr framework

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

45 Years to 70 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

* • Six osseointegrated maxillary and six mandibular implants * No clinical or radiographic signs of implant failure * Good systemic health * Normal maxillomandibular relationship and acceptable oral hygiene

Exclusion criteria

* • Implant failure * Unfavorable occlusal relationships * Poor compliance or inability to attend follow-up

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
the number of occurance of Prosthetic complications	after a year	The prosthetic complications were evaluated for the three different types of Co-Cr frameworks The following prosthetic complications were evaluated: * abutment screw loosening * abutment screw fracture * prosthetic screw loosening * prosthetic screw fracture * acrylic teeth fracture (separation) * acrylic teeth wear (replacement) * co-cr framework fracture

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
the implant framework Passive fit	baseline	the passivity of the framework was evaluated digitally using 3D scan protocol

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 24, 2026