The goal of this clinical trials to evaluate precision of different scanbodies in same participant group. The main guestion it aim to answer is: 1\. Are the precision of the three different scanbodies used in direct digitalization the same for the produce of implant-supported prostheses? Participants are healty and have short edentulous span in posterior region that will receive implant-supported prostheses.
Twenty-five patients receiving two implant supported restorations in treatment of short-span partial edentulism were enrolled into the study. Three different scanbodies, original, non-original and generic, were employed for direct digitalization technique. Full contour PMMA restorations were CAD/CAM fabricated from each digital record, and were evaluated in terms of implant fit, axial- and occlusal-contact. Additionally, patient's impressions for digitalization and delivery procedures were recorded using a visual analog scale. Scanbody scan recordings were subjected to reverse engineering for analytical evaluation of 3D virtual implant positioning.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
25
original (Straumann), non-original (Medentika) and generic scan-bodies (3Shape) were utilized for direct digitalization using intraoral scanner with image stitching algorithm. Full contour temporary restorations were fabricated from each digital record, and were evaluated in terms of clinical and analytical.
Hacettepe University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Prosthodontics
Ankara, Altındağ, Turkey (Türkiye)
Clinical fit
Compatibility between the manufactured restorations and implant 0: incompatible 1: compatible
Time frame: 1 year
occlusal contact
Restoration occlusal contact with the opposite teeth. I.Occlusal Contacts: 1. Perfect: No need for occlusal contact adjustment, 2. Acceptable: Minor occlusal contact adjustment is needed, 3. Correction needed: Major occlusal contact adjustment is needed.
Time frame: 1 year
interface contact
Restoration interface contacts with the adjacent teeth. II. Interface Contacts: 1. Perfect: The floss is inserted into the interdental space only under pressure, 2. Acceptable (1): The contact is slightly tight but the floss is placed under pressure, 3. Acceptable (2): The contact is slightly weak, the floss is placed in one stroke without applying pressure, 4. Correction required: Contact is poor and 100 μm metal sheet passes easily.
Time frame: 1 year
Analytical measurement of 3D implant positions
Analytical outcomes were obtained from scan bodies using reverse engineering software used to calculate 3D implant positions.
Time frame: 1 year
Visual analog scale
Patient impression was done in two clinical stages, registration and restoration delivery, and a scale of five points from 0 to 100 was used. A value of 0 is set to be straightforward and 100 complex. During the registration phase, the patient's anxiety level about the direct digitalization procedure, which was explained in detail before registration, was determined. After the registration, it was asked to evaluate the difficulty of the process. The time spent for adjustment during the restoration delivery phase and the comfort feeling of the restoration after adjustment were evaluated.
Time frame: 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.