Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcome of Navigated Photogrammetry to standard stereophotogrammetry techniques in digital dentistry for the following two parameters:
Participants will receive either a provisional manufactured by the output of Navigated Photogrammetry, or a provisional manufactured by the output of standard stereophotogrammetry.
Prior to implant surgery, a patient treatment plan is developed using a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), Intra Oral Scan (IOS), or digitized analog records. These records are loaded into a computer-aided design (CAD) program. The individual planning files are all related to one another in one coordinate system. This plan can be used to produce provisional restorations via computer-aided manufacturing (CAM). These files can also be used to implement the plan during surgery using either static guides or dynamic navigation.
Following implant surgery, the final placed implant locations will inherently have some deviation from the plan. It is important for the dentist to understand the physical location of the placed implants to achieve passive fit. In implant dentistry, a "passive fit" refers to the precise alignment and seating of prosthetic components onto dental implants without any internal stress or strain. Achieving a passive fit is crucial for the long-term success and stability of the dental prosthesis.
A potential method to obtain the final implant locations is stereophotogrammetry. Navigated Photogrammetry (NPG) is a new form of stereophotogrammetry which is inherently capable of relating the placed implants to the patient's anatomy using the registration of the Dynamic Surgical Navigation System (DSNS).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| FastMap Navigated Photogrammetry | Following implant surgery, the patient will then receive a provisional that was manufactured using the data from FastMap Navigated Photogrammetry. |
| |
| Standard Stereophotogrammetry | Following implant surgery, the patient will then receive a provisional that was manufactured using the data from Standard Stereophotogrammetry. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Navigated Photogrammetry | Device | Navigated Photogrammetry shall be performed following implant surgery, rather than standard stereophotogrammetry. The patient will then receive a provisional that was manufactured using the data from FastMap Navigated Photogrammetry. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Provisional prosthesis fit | The passive fit of the provisional prosthesis onto the implants as well as occlusal fit with the opposing jaw. | at provisional placement completion, approximately 2 weeks |
| Clinician interaction time | The amount of time needed to prepare each type of provisional digital files for use in the lab, measured in direct doctor interaction time. | at provisional placement completion, approximately 2 weeks |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Study participants will be current patients of the investigators who are already intended to undergo implant placement surgery. Participants who willingly accepted the risks and benefits associated with placement of dental implants and stereophotogrammetry in the private practice of the investigators will be considered for inclusion in the study. Those patients deemed ineligible or who chose not to participate in the research study will be treated using conventional techniques.
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Center For Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and For Cosmetic Surgery | Washington D.C. | District of Columbia | 20037 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 37574278 | Background | Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Lio F, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2024 Jan 16;68(1):172-180. doi: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00251. Epub 2023 Aug 11. | |
| 35409985 | Background | Orejas-Perez J, Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Ortiz-Collado I, Thuissard IJ, Santamaria-Laorden A. In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 3;19(7):4300. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19074300. |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results-Part 1: General principles and definitions | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Standard Photogrammetry | Device | The patient will receive the existing patient care protocol that includes anatomy information for the manufacturing of the provisional. Specifically, the patient will receive a preoperative IntraOral Scan (IOS) anatomy scan with IOS-compatible fiducials. Following implant surgery, the patient will receive a scan with a standard stereophotogrammetry device. Additionally, they will receive a post-op alignment IOS with IOS-compatible anatomy fiducials and IOS-compatible implant scan bodies. The patient will then receive a provisional that was manufactured using the data from the standard stereophotogrammetry device. |
|
| 32386912 | Background | Revilla-Leon M, Att W, Ozcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Mar;125(3):470-478. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.005. Epub 2020 May 6. |
| 34154820 | Background | Revilla-Leon M, Rubenstein J, Methani MM, Piedra-Cascon W, Ozcan M, Att W. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Jan;129(1):160-165. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.019. Epub 2021 Jun 18. |
| 34112521 | Background | Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Feb;129(2):354-362. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006. Epub 2021 Jun 8. |
| 26944406 | Background | Manzella C, Bignardi C, Burello V, Carossa S, Schierano G. Method to improve passive fit of frameworks on implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jul;116(1):52-8. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.006. Epub 2016 Mar 2. |
| 22171700 | Background | Jemt T, Hjalmarsson L. In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between "virtual" and "physical" assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May;14 Suppl 1:e175-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x. Epub 2011 Dec 15. |
| 11168264 | Background | Schwarz MS. Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11 Suppl 1:156-8. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011s1156.x. |