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
Not provided
This randomized clinical study aimed to compare prosthetic complications and framework misfit associated with three different fabrication techniques of cobalt-chromium frameworks-conventional casting, CAD/CAM milling, and selective laser melting (SLM)-used in maxillary and mandibular full-arch implant-supported acrylic screw-retained restorations.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group I: Conventional cast Co-Cr framework | Active Comparator | patients received maxillary and mandibular full-arch implant fixed prosthesis with conventional casting CO-CR framework |
|
| Group II: CAD/CAM milled Co-Cr framework | Active Comparator | patients received maxillary and mandibular full-arch implant fixed prosthesis with milled CO-CR framework |
|
| Group III: Selective laser melting (SLM) Co-Cr framework | Active Comparator | patients received maxillary and mandibular full-arch implant fixed prosthesis with a laser-melted CO-CR framework. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implant supported prosthesis | Device | All patients received maxillary and mandibular six implants to support a metal acrylic screw retained full-arch prosthesis |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| the number of occurance of Prosthetic complications | The prosthetic complications were evaluated for the three different types of Co-Cr frameworks The following prosthetic complications were evaluated:
| after a year |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| the implant framework Passive fit | the passivity of the framework was evaluated digitally using 3D scan protocol | baseline |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
• Six osseointegrated maxillary and six mandibular implants
Exclusion Criteria:
• Implant failure
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansoura University , Faculty Of Dentistry | Al Mansurah | Dakahlia Governorate | P.O.Box:35516 | Egypt |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019094 | Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D017266 | Dental Prosthesis |
| D011476 | Prosthodontics |
| D003813 | Dentistry |
| D019736 | Prostheses and Implants |
Not provided
Not provided
Patients were randomly allocated to three equal groups (n = 9) by simple randomization:Group I: Conventional cast Co-Cr framework, Group II: CAD/CAM milled Co-Cr framework, and Group III: SLM Co-Cr framework
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| D004864 |
| Equipment and Supplies |