search
Back to results

Comparison of Full-arch Implant-supported Frameworks From an Intraoral Scanning or From a Conventional Impression

Primary Purpose

Edentulous Jaw

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Spain
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Clinical adjustment
Sponsored by
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional device feasibility trial for Edentulous Jaw

Eligibility Criteria

undefined - undefined (Child, Adult, Older Adult)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

·Patients with four or more implants already osseo-integrated ready to rehabilitate with a full-arch implant-supported framework of 10 or more units. ·Upper or lower jaw.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Implants not suitable for multiunit abutments.
  • More than six implants.
  • Peri-implantitis present in any implant.
  • Need of a removable prosthesis.
  • Patients unable to understand the purpose of the study.
  • Patients with a restorative space higher than 15 milimiters.

Sites / Locations

  • Clinica Universitaria d'Odontologia

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Intraoral scanning

Conventional scanning

Arm Description

An intraoral scanning is taken. An auxiliary device is used to achieve better accuracy. A zirconia framework is produced

A conventional elastomeric impression is taken and a zirconia framework is produced

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Accuracy of the framework
Overall perception of adjustment of the two frameworks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Perception of the passivity
A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) will be used to assess the perception of passivity in the insertion of the prosthodontic screws. A ten centimeters line will be shown to the observer. One side of the line represents "perfect passivity", and the other "no passivity at all". The observer will mark his passivity perception on the line between the two endpoints. The distance between "no passivity at all" and the mark will define the passivity perception.
Optical adjustment
Examination of the marginal fit with an exploratory probe (#23/3 explorer) under 3,8x magnification. Three possible scores were possible: 0 (no gap perceived when probing), 1 (perception of the gap without entering it) and 2 (the tip of the explorer clearly entered the gap).
Radiographic adjustment
Periapical radiographs will be taken with a positioning system to evaluate possible gaps. Five possible scores will be possible from 1 to 5, being 1 no gap and increasing 0.15mm each score until reaching 0.60mm in score 5.
Screwing torque
Screwing torque in each abutment will be measured by means of Ichiropro® motor. The torque/angle signature will be registered and three possible scores will be possible: 1 for linear value with a fast increase at end of the tightening, 2 for soft continuous growth with a steeper increase at the end, 3 for steep increase at the beginning of tightening.

Full Information

First Posted
June 17, 2019
Last Updated
December 12, 2019
Sponsor
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03992300
Brief Title
Comparison of Full-arch Implant-supported Frameworks From an Intraoral Scanning or From a Conventional Impression
Official Title
Comparison of Accuracy and Timing Parameter of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques on Fully Edentulous Jaws: an in Vivo Study
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
June 2019
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
May 28, 2019 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
September 30, 2019 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
September 30, 2019 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
Purpose: To determine if adjustment of full-arch zirconia frameworks processed on a model obtained with an intraoral scanner and an auxiliary device is not inferior to that of identical frameworks obtained from an elastomeric impression. Materials and methods: Eight consecutive patients ready for a full-arch rehabilitation on already osseointegrated implants were selected. Two sets of impressions were taken, one open tray with polyether and splinted impression copings and a second one with an intraoral scanner. A verification plaster jig was used for the elastomeric impression and a prefabricated auxiliary device was used to adjust the optical intraoral impressions. Two full-zirconia frameworks with the same design were processed and tested on the patient by two independent calibrated operators. Accuracy of both frameworks was measured by calibrated blinded operators, who determined tactile adjustment, Sheffield test, radiographic adjustment, and screwing torque. Overall perception of adjustment was used to determine the better framework to be delivered to the patient. Hº: Frameworks obtained from an impression taken with an intraoral scanner are not inferior in accuracy to those obtained from a conventional elastomeric impression
Detailed Description
Eight consecutive patients ready for a full-arch rehabilitation on previously osseointegrated implants, and who had received an immediately loaded prosthesis, were selected. All implants had multiunit abutments placed on top. Cases from 4 to 6 implants were accepted, either upper or lower arches. Three sets of impressions were taken to each patient: Conventional impression: Open tray impression copings were screwed on top of all implants in the arch using a torque wrench set at 10 N/cm. Impression copings were splinted by means of Triad Gel clear resin, with an at least 3mm diameter in the resin connectors. Once the resin was photo-polymerized a cut was done in the centre of each connection with a 0.3 mm bur, to eliminate possible stress in the structure, and then it was splinted again with a drop of Triad Gel in each cut. A polyether impression was taken by means of a perforated plastic tray, and a master model was fabricated following the manufacturer's instructions. A plaster verification jig was fabricated on the model. After one week the patient came to the dental clinic where vertical dimension of occlusion was determined and the plaster key was screwed in the patient mouth to check passivity. In case the key had been fractured, a new impression would have been taken, and if not, final prosthesis could be processed. Optical impression: An impression of the antagonist and an impression of the edentulous arch with the healing abutments in place were taken by means of an optical scanner following the manufacturers protocol. The position of the implants was marked in the working standard tessellation language (STL) model, and the software cut a circle on top of those areas. The files were copied, and two datasets were obtained. Scan-bodies were placed on top of each multiunit abutment, the first STL dataset was open and a second impression was taken, so that the scan-bodies were positioned on the working file. Scan-bodies were then removed from the patient mouth, and temporary copings were placed on top of each multiunit abutment. A MedicalFit device was selected, and holes were drilled in the position of the implants until it fitted on top of all the cylinders. Cylinders were then splinted to MedicalFit device by means of Triad Gel clear. The device was then removed from the patient mouth and scan implant replicas were placed at the bottom of the metal cylinders. Finally, the device with the scan implant replicas was scanned with an intraoral optical scanner. The following set of pictures were taken: Rest position, maximum smile (with the scan bodies placed in the mouth), front with retractors (with the scan bodies), and 45º with retractors (also with the scan bodies in place). All pictures and STL datasets were sent to the dental technician to produce a temporary structure. The STL dataset from the scanning of Medicalfit device used was adjusted to the original STL dataset of the device in the library, and then superimposed to the dataset of the scan-bodies received from us, to allow repositioning of the scan-bodies and to correct possible discrepancies during the intraoral scanning process. A temporary polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) framework was delivered by the dental lab and tried in the patient mouth. Corrections were done to adjust occlusion, gingival contour and esthetic parameters where needed. Once esthetic parameters and occlusal scheme were considered correct, a new intraoral scanning was taken with the temporary framework in place. In case changes were done in the gingival contour, scanning of the gingival aspect of the PMMA framework was also done. The PMMA temporary was then left in the patient mouth. Three pictures were taken with the PMMA framework placed in the mouth: Front full face at rest, front full-face smiling, front full face with separators and full face smiling at 45º. Clinical adjustment assessment: After one week two sets of the final prosthesis in full-zirconia were sent from the dental lab, one processed with conventional models and the second fully digital. Both sets were tested in the patient mouth by two calibrated blinded independent operators. Misfit should be ideally measured in terms smaller than 10 microns, but clinical adjustment is difficult to assess using conventional or quantitative methods. In this research adjustment was assessed following four criteria: passivity in the insertion of the screws, tactile sensation, radiographs and screwing torque: A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess the perception of passivity in the insertion of the prosthodontic screws. A ten centimeters line will be shown to the observer. One side of the line represents "perfect passivity", and the other "no passive at all". The observer will mark his passivity perception on the line between the two endpoints. The distance between "no passivity at all" and the mark will defines the passivity perception. Examination of the marginal fit with an exploratory probe (#23/3 explorer) under 3,8x magnification. Three possible scores were possible: 0 (no gap perceived when probing), 1 (perception of the gap without entering it) and 2 (the tip of the explorer clearly entered the gap). Periapical radiographs were taken with a positioning system to evaluate possible gaps. Five possible scores were possible from 1 to 5, being 1 no gap and increasing 0.15 mm each score until reaching 0.60 mm in score 5. Digital photographs were taken with a 105 mm macro lens. The pictures were calibrated with the known height of the framework and the gap was measured. Four possible scores were possible, being 1 no gap and increasing 0.25 mm each score until reaching 0.75 mm in score 5. Screwing torque on each abutment was measured with the app software from Ichiropro motor (BienAir, Bienne, Switzerland). All screws were hand screwed and then all but the most distal right were unscrewed. Torque was set at 15 N/cm and speed at 5 rpm. The most right distal screw was tightened first, and then the rest of the screws were tightened starting at the most mesial left, following to the most distal left, and from that to the next neighbor implant until all screws were tightened. The torque-time signature was studied in every screw to determine if the torque started to grow just at the end of the tightening or throughout the process. Three scores were possible: 1 for linear value with a fast increase at end of the tightening, 2 for soft continuous growth with a steeper increase at the end, 3 for steep increase at the beginning of tightening. Once the assessment of the two frameworks was completed, the framework with better adjustment will be placed in the patient, after assessing the presence of correct occlusion, phonetics and esthetic parameters. The second set will be packed and delivered to the patient as a possible replacement in case of problems in the future.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Edentulous Jaw

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Device Feasibility
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Model Description
Two frameworks with the same design obtained from two different models (intraoral scanning and conventional impression) are processed and tested in every patient
Masking
Outcomes Assessor
Masking Description
The frameworks are marked with a triangle or a circle in the distal aspect of the distal right molar. The outcomes assessor does not now to which group corresponds each framework
Allocation
Non-Randomized
Enrollment
8 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Intraoral scanning
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
An intraoral scanning is taken. An auxiliary device is used to achieve better accuracy. A zirconia framework is produced
Arm Title
Conventional scanning
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
A conventional elastomeric impression is taken and a zirconia framework is produced
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Clinical adjustment
Intervention Description
Accuracy of the framework is checked in the patient mouth by tactile perception, screwing torque, Sheffield test and radiography.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Accuracy of the framework
Description
Overall perception of adjustment of the two frameworks
Time Frame
one day
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Perception of the passivity
Description
A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) will be used to assess the perception of passivity in the insertion of the prosthodontic screws. A ten centimeters line will be shown to the observer. One side of the line represents "perfect passivity", and the other "no passivity at all". The observer will mark his passivity perception on the line between the two endpoints. The distance between "no passivity at all" and the mark will define the passivity perception.
Time Frame
1 day
Title
Optical adjustment
Description
Examination of the marginal fit with an exploratory probe (#23/3 explorer) under 3,8x magnification. Three possible scores were possible: 0 (no gap perceived when probing), 1 (perception of the gap without entering it) and 2 (the tip of the explorer clearly entered the gap).
Time Frame
1 day
Title
Radiographic adjustment
Description
Periapical radiographs will be taken with a positioning system to evaluate possible gaps. Five possible scores will be possible from 1 to 5, being 1 no gap and increasing 0.15mm each score until reaching 0.60mm in score 5.
Time Frame
1 day
Title
Screwing torque
Description
Screwing torque in each abutment will be measured by means of Ichiropro® motor. The torque/angle signature will be registered and three possible scores will be possible: 1 for linear value with a fast increase at end of the tightening, 2 for soft continuous growth with a steeper increase at the end, 3 for steep increase at the beginning of tightening.
Time Frame
1 day

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: ·Patients with four or more implants already osseo-integrated ready to rehabilitate with a full-arch implant-supported framework of 10 or more units. ·Upper or lower jaw. Exclusion Criteria: Implants not suitable for multiunit abutments. More than six implants. Peri-implantitis present in any implant. Need of a removable prosthesis. Patients unable to understand the purpose of the study. Patients with a restorative space higher than 15 milimiters.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
MIGUEL ROIG CAYON, MD DDS PHD
Organizational Affiliation
Unversitat Internacional de Catalunya
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Clinica Universitaria d'Odontologia
City
Sant Cugat del Vallés
State/Province
Barcelona
ZIP/Postal Code
08195
Country
Spain

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
IPD Sharing Plan Description
We plan to publish the data in a paper
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
18922257
Citation
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Oct;100(4):285-91. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11887597
Citation
al-Turki LE, Chai J, Lautenschlager EP, Hutten MC. Changes in prosthetic screw stability because of misfit of implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Jan-Feb;15(1):38-42.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
9274082
Citation
Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Jul-Aug;12(4):527-40. Erratum In: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997 Sep-Oct;12(5):709.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8595110
Citation
Millington ND, Leung T. Inaccurate fit of implant superstructures. Part 1: Stresses generated on the superstructure relative to the size of fit discrepancy. Int J Prosthodont. 1995 Nov-Dec;8(6):511-6.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11450418
Citation
Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent. 2001;10(2):85-92. doi: 10.1097/00008505-200104000-00003.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20556249
Citation
Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):506-15.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28944373
Citation
Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:121-138.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8666454
Citation
Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Mar-Apr;11(2):216-22.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28720339
Citation
Al-Meraikhi H, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy E, Brantley W, Johnston WM. In vitro fit of CAD-CAM complete arch screw-retained titanium and zirconia implant prostheses fabricated on 4 implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Mar;119(3):409-416. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.023. Epub 2017 Jul 15.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
1813395
Citation
Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991 Fall;6(3):270-6.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
3904064
Citation
Klineberg IJ, Murray GM. Design of superstructures for osseointegrated fixtures. Swed Dent J Suppl. 1985;28:63-9. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24726587
Citation
Gibbs SB, Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Ahuja S. Comparison of polymerization shrinkage of pattern resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Aug;112(2):293-8. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.02.006. Epub 2014 Apr 14. Erratum In: J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Dec;114(6):872.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22413889
Citation
Papaspyridakos P, Lal K. Computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing zirconia implant fixed complete prostheses: clinical results and technical complications up to 4 years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jun;24(6):659-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02447.x. Epub 2012 Mar 13.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
9878969
Citation
Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1999 Jan;81(1):7-13. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70229-5.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25878678
Citation
Ebadian B, Rismanchian M, Dastgheib B, Bajoghli F. Effect of different impression materials and techniques on the dimensional accuracy of implant definitive casts. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2015 Mar-Apr;12(2):136-43.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26946916
Citation
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug;116(2):184-190.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21075442
Citation
Rodriguez JM, Bartlett DW. The dimensional stability of impression materials and its effect on in vitro tooth wear studies. Dent Mater. 2011 Mar;27(3):253-8. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.010. Epub 2010 Nov 13.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12087547
Citation
Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT 2nd, Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont. 2002 Jun;11(2):98-108.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22505972
Citation
Amin WM, Al-Ali MH, Al Tarawneh SK, Taha ST, Saleh MW, Ereifij N. The effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of impression materials and gypsum casts. J Clin Med Res. 2009 Jun;1(2):81-9. doi: 10.4021/jocmr2009.04.1235. Epub 2009 Jun 21.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17216911
Citation
Holst S, Blatz MB, Bergler M, Goellner M, Wichmann M. Influence of impression material and time on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant impressions. Quintessence Int. 2007 Jan;38(1):67-73.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22944312
Citation
Schaefer O, Schmidt M, Goebel R, Kuepper H. Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Sep;108(3):165-72. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60141-3.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26110925
Citation
Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-29. English, German.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28965251
Citation
Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Apr;22(3):1253-1262. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9. Epub 2017 Sep 30.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27483210
Citation
Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan;27(1):35-41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527. Epub 2016 Aug 2.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30521661
Citation
Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 March/April;34(2):366-380. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6855. Epub 2018 Dec 5.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28385445
Citation
Penarrocha-Diago M, Balaguer-Marti JC, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martinez JF, Penarrocha-Diago M, Agustin-Panadero R. A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: A randomized controlled pilot clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Nov;118(5):596-603. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.015. Epub 2017 Apr 3.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24686966
Citation
Pradies G, Ferreiroa A, Ozcan M, Gimenez B, Martinez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014 Apr;145(4):338-44. doi: 10.14219/jada.2013.45.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26715129
Citation
Corominas-Delgado C, Espona J, Lorente-Gascon M, Real-Voltas F, Roig M, Costa-Palau S. Digital implant impressions by cone-beam computerized tomography: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):1407-1413. doi: 10.1111/clr.12754. Epub 2015 Dec 30.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22176765
Citation
Ercoli C, Geminiani A, Feng C, Lee H. The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May;14 Suppl 1:e188-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00425.x. Epub 2011 Dec 16.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25106015
Citation
Alhashim A, Flinton RJ. Dental gypsum verification jig to verify implant positions: a clinical report. J Oral Implantol. 2014 Aug;40(4):495-9. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00196. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8648581
Citation
Jemt T, Rubenstein JE, Carlsson L, Lang BR. Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Mar;75(3):314-25. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90491-6.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Comparison of Full-arch Implant-supported Frameworks From an Intraoral Scanning or From a Conventional Impression

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs