Digital vs Analog Impression in Cases of All-on-4 - Prosthesis

In a Post -Covid-19 World, What is the Clinical Influence of Digital vs Analog Impression in Cases of All-on-4 - Prosthesis ?

Fifty six patients were randomly enrolled in the study. Participants were randomly stratified into two control groups and two test groups, from which conventional pick up and digital impressions were made respectively. Patients of group 1 (CIG Axial) and 3 (DIG Axial) received 4 axial implants whereas, group 2 patients (CIG Tilted), and group 4 (DIG Tilted) received two anterior axial implants and two distal tilted implants.

All participants received hybrid dentures. Bone loss, implant loss, maintenance of prosthesis were evaluated at 6m,12m, and 24 months follow up period.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

56

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Giza, Egypt, 12451
        • OctoberUMSA

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

50 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • completely edentulous patients with age range from 50-65 years.
  • physically and psychologically eligible participants for implants placement.
  • adequate bone to receive 4 interforaminal implants.

Exclusion Criteria:

participants were excluded if

  • medical conditions that precludes implants placement
  • smokers
  • patients suffering from any parafunctional habits

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: (CIG Axial)
received 4 axial implants and conventional impression
patients received 4 axial implants and digital impression
Experimental: (DIG Axial)
received 4 axial implants and digital impression
received two anterior axial implants and two distal tilted implants, and digital impression
patients received 4 axial implants and conventional impression
Active Comparator: CIG Tilted
received two anterior axial implants and two distal tilted implants, and conventional impression
received two anterior axial implants and two distal tilted implants, and digital impression
Experimental: (DIG Tilted)
received two anterior axial implants and two distal tilted implants, and digital impression
patients received 4 axial implants and digital impression
received two anterior axial implants and two distal tilted implants, and conventional impression

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
implant loss
Time Frame: 24 months
The implants were considered surviving if they were clinically stable and functioning without any mobility. Failure was defined removal of implants due to loss of integration, pain, implant mobility, paraesthesia, neuropathies or psychological reasons. Calculation of the estimated failure rate was performed by dividing the number of implant failures by the total exposure time of the implant. The total exposure time is the interval of time the implants could be followed for the entire observation time or up to failure of the implants that were lost during the follow-up period.
24 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
crestal bone loss
Time Frame: 24 months
Standardized periapical radiographs with long cone paralleling technique using film holders were used for the assessment of crestal bone loss. The loss of marginal bone relative to the implant shoulder at the mesial and distal of each implant was measured in mm and then the mean was calculated and statistically estimated. A digital intraoral imaging system was used (Digora phosphor plate reader, Soredex Tuusula, Finland). All the radiographs were scanned and then uploaded into the computer for assessing bone loss over time. The "ImageJ" software was used to take the measurements on the computer screen. Postoperative radiographs with the implants placed at the crest of the bone were compared with the 6,12 and 24 m radiographs.
24 months

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
maintenance
Time Frame: 24 months
During the follow-up period, prosthodontic (mechanical) complications for the four groups were registered and calculated according to the following events: number of screw loosening or screw fracture of the abutment, number of screw loosening or screw fracture of the prosthesis, number of framework fracture, fractured acrylic resin, number of prosthetic teeth fracture and loss of cover of access hole.
24 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Dina Elawady, Lecturer

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

July 11, 2018

Primary Completion (Actual)

July 11, 2020

Study Completion (Actual)

August 20, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 14, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 14, 2020

First Posted (Actual)

July 17, 2020

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 1, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 24, 2021

Last Verified

July 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 5

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Edentulous Mouth

Clinical Trials on DIG Axial

Search Similar Trials