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
Quantification and visualization the internal and marginal gaps by newer digital methods, such as the triple-scan protocol described by Borga Dönmez et al. (2024), employing 3D analysis software, offering a more objective and reproducible assessment.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence A | Active Comparator | Participants received the three impression techniques in the following order: Conventional Impression Technique Digital Impression with Nonmodified Scan Body Digital Impression with Modified Scan Body |
|
| Sequence B | Active Comparator | Participants received the three impression techniques in the following order: Digital Impression with Nonmodified Scan Body Digital Impression with Modified Scan Body Conventional Impression Technique |
|
| Sequence C | Active Comparator | Participants received the three impression techniques in the following order: Digital Impression with Modified Scan Body Conventional Impression Technique Digital Impression with Nonmodified Scan Body |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional Impression Technique | Device | Conventional implant impression using impression copings and elastomeric impression material. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Mean horizontal misfit (µm) | Mean horizontal misfit using the triple-scan protocol and STL file superimposition in software. Results will be reported in micrometers (µm). | Day 1 |
| Mean vertical misfit (µm) | Mean vertical misfit using the triple-scan protocol and STL file superimposition in software. Results will be reported in micrometers (µm). | Day 1 |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Reduced patient satisfaction regarding the stability and retention of conventional mandibular dentures due to mandibular ridge atrophy.
Completely edentulous maxillary and mandibular arches for at least 1 year. Sufficient bone volume for placement of four mandibular implants without the need for bone grafting.
Age between 45 and 64 years. Ability and willingness to provide informed consent and comply with study procedures.
Exclusion Criteria:
Current smoking habit. Bone metabolic diseases that may affect osseointegration. History of radiotherapy to the head and neck region within the previous 3 years.
Systemic conditions or medications that could compromise implant healing. Inability to attend follow-up visits or comply with study requirements.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaa Mohamed Barakat Elazaly | Al Mansurah | Egypt |
Not provided
Participants underwent all three impression techniques (conventional impression, digital impression with nonmodified scan bodies, and digital impression with modified scan bodies) in a randomized crossover sequence. Each participant served as his or her own control, and the order of impression techniques was randomized to minimize sequence effects.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Digital Impression with Nonmodified Scan Body | Device | Digital implant impression obtained using nonmodified implant scan bodies |
|
| Digital Impression with Modified Scan Body | Device | Digital implant impression obtained using subtractively modified implant scan bodies |
|