Comparison of Three Final Impression Techniques for Severely Resorbed Mandibular Ridges

Digital Evaluation of the Accuracy of Final Impressions Recorded by Three Different Techniques for Severely Resorbed Complete Mandibular Ridges: An In Vivo Crossover Study

Status

Completed

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT07764640

Enrollment

Registered

2026-08-14

Start date

2024-12-12

Completion date

2026-06-14

Last updated

2026-08-14

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

Conditions

Severely Resorbed Mandibular Ridge in Completely Edentulous Patients

Keywords

Resorbed ridge,digital analysis,final impression,geomagic

Brief summary

This in vivo crossover study aims to compare the accuracy of three different final impression techniques for severely resorbed mandibular ridges in completely edentulous patients. The accuracy of the impressions will be evaluated digitally using three-dimensional scanning and deviation analysis to determine differences among the impression techniques.

Interventions

PROCEDUREConventional final impression

Conventional final impression technique using alginate impression material followed by zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) impression material

PROCEDUREWax impression technique

Wax impression technique using a wax impression followed by alginate impression material.

PROCEDURECompound impression technique

Compound impression technique using a low fusing impression compound followed by alginate impression material.

Study design

Allocation

NON_RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

CROSSOVER

Primary purpose

OTHER

Masking

NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Inclusion Criteria: 1. Completely edentulous patients with severely resorbed mandibular ridges. 2. Patients requiring a mandibular complete denture. 3. Patients able to tolerate the impression procedures and attend the required study visits. 4. Patients willing to participate in the study and provide informed consent.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
3D deviation (RMS) between final impression scans	Immediately after each final impression was recorded	The accuracy of the final impression techniques was assessed by three-dimensional deviation analysis of the impression scans using Geomagic Control software. Root Mean Square (RMS) deviation was calculated by comparing the scans obtained using the different impression techniques.

Countries

Egypt

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORNashwa Ali Saleh, PHD

Tanta University

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 15, 2026