Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques Used for Maxillary Hybrid Prosthesis

Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques for Maxillary Full Arch Screw Retained Hybrid Prosthesis

evaluation and comparison of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression for full arch screw retained prosthesis for edentulous maxilla.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Prosthesis Durability
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: impression techniques for implant used for maxillary screw retained hybrid prosthesis

Detailed Description

Each patient received 6 implants in the maxillary ridge (widely distributed across the arch) in the following positions: central incisors, canines/first premolar teeth and first molar teeth aided by surgical stent. then each patient received 2 types of impression techniques Technique 1 :conventional impression conventional open tray impression technique with splinted transfers using vinylpolysiloxane and Technique2 : Digital impression taken using original scan bodies torqued to the implants .three dimensional accuracy of impression techniques was evaluated using linear measurements and 3D deviation between the two techniques was measured.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 12
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Egypt
  • DK
    • Mansoura, DK, Egypt, 35516
      • Faculty of dentistry , Mansoura university

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 50 years to 65 years (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• The patients were selected according to the following inclusion criteria:

  1. Completely edentulous maxillary and mandibular ridges
  2. Healthy ridge covered by normal oral mucosa and free from any ridge flabbiness.
  3. All of the patients were dissatisfied with the retention and stability of their maxillary conventional dentures and expressed a strong desire for a more stable prosthesis.
  4. Sufficient bone quantity and quality in the front and posterior maxillary regions, as determined by preoperative CBCT, to accommodate six implants with a diameter of at least 3.5 mm and a length of at least 10 mm.
  5. Enough restorative space (from the mucosa covering the crest of the maxillary residual ridge to the occlusal plane) to allow the fixed prosthesis to be constructed ,preliminary jaw relationship revealed this.

  6. It's been at least a year since the last extraction.

     Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Systemic diseases that may alter tissue response to implantation and affects osseointegration (radiation, diabetes, osteoporosis, bleeding disorders or hepatic patients)
  2. Long term immunosuppressive and corticosteroid drug therapy.
  3. Patient with abnormal habits as clenching and bruxism.
  4. Smoking patients.
  5. Patients with problems in TMJ.
  6. Neuromuscular diseases.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: OTHER
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Interventional Model: CROSSOVER
• Masking: NONE

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
OTHER: technique 1: conventional splinted open tray impression; a conventional open tray impression technique splinted with ligature wire and duralay resin was done with polyvinyl siloxane impression . analogues were screwed to the impression copings and casts were poured.	Other: impression techniques for implant used for maxillary screw retained hybrid prosthesis; conventional splinted open tray impression technique was done for maxillary implants to fabricate screw retained hybrid prosthesis and digital intra oral impression was done for the same patients after screwing scan bodies to the implants intra orally. evaluation of accuracy and 3D deviation between the two techniques was done; Other Names: digital and conventional impression techniques
OTHER: technique 2: digital intraoral impression technique; scan bodies were screwed to implants intraorally and digital scanner was used to record digital impression, scanning protocol started from occlusal ,buccal to palatal surfaces. The resulting scans were then exported in the standard tessellation format (.STL)	Other: impression techniques for implant used for maxillary screw retained hybrid prosthesis; conventional splinted open tray impression technique was done for maxillary implants to fabricate screw retained hybrid prosthesis and digital intra oral impression was done for the same patients after screwing scan bodies to the implants intra orally. evaluation of accuracy and 3D deviation between the two techniques was done; Other Names: digital and conventional impression techniques

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
accuracy of impression technique	deviation measurements digitally	immediately after the intervention/procedure

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
passivity of final restoration	Clinical measurement of prosthesis passivity using single screw test of Sheffield.	immediately after the intervention/procedure

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Mansoura University

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (ACTUAL): March 1, 2021
• Primary Completion (ACTUAL): February 20, 2022
• Study Completion (ACTUAL): March 20, 2022

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: March 21, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 4, 2022
• First Posted (ACTUAL): April 11, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (ACTUAL): April 11, 2022
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 4, 2022
• Last Verified: April 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: digital impression, conventional impression
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Pathologic Processes; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Failure
• Other Study ID Numbers: A25100221

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No