AzTrials
AzTrials

Dental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedstrategiesIOSNCT05985226

Clinical Evaluation of the Effect of the Scanning Pattern on Complete-arch Implant Scans

A study testing intraoral scan in people with Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, run by Universidad Complutense de Madrid at 1 site in Spain.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This clinical trial aims to analyze and compare the influence of different scanning strategies (zigzag with conventional scan body, circumferential with conventional scan body, surface blocking with conventional scan body, zigzag with low profile scan body, standard strategy with low profile scan body) on the accuracy… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
What is being tested?
intraoral scan
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
1 participants
Where
1 siteSpain
Study dates
1 Apr 2023to Sep 2023
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patient susceptible to rehabilitation with a fixed prosthesis on implants.
  • Good general health (ASA I and ASA II),

Who cannot join

  • Joint problems or limitation of opening.
  • Patients who, after reading the information sheet the patient and informed consent, and clarified any doubts, do not agree to participate in the study

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Miguel Gómez-Polo, PhD, DDS contact

+34 659390001

mgomezpo@ucm.es

Miguel Gómez-Polo contact

+34 659390001

mgomezpo@ucm.es

Spain1 site, 1 recruiting
  • School of Dentistry, Complutense University. Pza Ramón y Cajal s/n.

    Madrid, 28040

    Miguel Gómez Polo, DDS, PhD, +34659390001, mgomezpo@ucm.es

    Recruiting

Other trials in Spain

About this study

This clinical trial aims to analyze and compare the influence of different scanning strategies (zigzag with conventional scan body, circumferential with conventional scan body, surface blocking with conventional scan body, zigzag with low profile scan body, standard strategy with low profile scan body) on the accuracy of the records obtained for a case of fixed rehabilitation on full-arch dental implants in patients of both sexes, over 18 years of age who will be rehabilitated with fixed prostheses on full-arch implants.

The main question it aims to answer is if there will be significant differences in scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) between the different groups of digital impressions compared to the reference model (conventional impression with rigid splinting) and types of scan bodies.

Read more

The patient will undergo conventional impression-taking (with pastes) to obtain the reference model. Subsequently, digital records will be taken with the intra-oral scanner until completing 15 records per group, out of a total of 6 experimental groups (1.- zigzag with conventional scan body (ZZ-SBL), 2.- circumferential with conventional scan body (C-SBL), 3.- surface blocking with scan conventional body (B-SBL), 4.- zigzag with low profile scan body (ZZ-SBL), 5.- a standard strategy with low profile scan body (STD-SBL), 6.- single pass with low profile scan body ( OP-SBL) These experimental groups will be scanned directly in the patient's mouth, to later be compared with the reference model, called the "master model".

Researchers will compare the six different methodologies for taking digital impressions to demonstrate which strategies are more accurate, faster, and require fewer frames.

Read the detailed description

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Record-taking is a fundamental process and the starting point for manufacturing a dental prosthesis. The appearance of intraoral scanners (IntraOral Scanners (IOS)) has meant a revolution in this regard due to the advantages they provide, including better communication with both the patient and the dental laboratory, better comfort and acceptance by the patient, the immediacy in sending the file and saving space in the storage of digital models versus conventional ones. However, they are not exempt from problems, including their high cost, the learning curve, and difficulty achieving a reliable record in certain circumstances, including edentulous full-arch records.

Recordings of the edentulous full arch with IOSs pose a challenge due to the type of operation of these devices, which gradually collect and overlap information from small areas until completing a full arch. For this reason, different techniques have been proposed to improve the accuracy of this type of recording. In addition, if there is a case in which accuracy is crucial, it is complete edentulous arches with implants since, if the registration is not exact, the prosthesis manufactured on it will not have a passive fit in the mouth, which would lead to the appearance of both biological and mechanical complications.

Different studies have tried to analyze how various factors influence this accuracy, and these factors can be divided into factors related to the operator, the scanner, environmental conditions, or intraoral conditions-also different scanning strategies or heights and positions of the scan bodies. However, most of these works have been developed in an in vitro environment. This fact is motivated by the greater ease of making the records and, as a more relevant fact, the possibility of obtaining a reliable reference model, employing a coordinate machine (Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM)) or a desktop scanner, something that in an in vivo study it is not possible.

The present study aims to clinically analyze the accuracy of different intraoral scanning strategies and types of scan bodies in edentulous full arch registrations on implants.

JUSTIFICATION Due to the importance of the accuracy in taking digital impressions in full-arch patients for the fabrication of restorations on implants, it is considered justified to study the influence of different scanning strategies and scan bodies on the accuracy of full-arch recording.

VIABILITY The project could be considered viable by having all the instruments and apparatus necessary to develop the material and methods. It is estimated that the proposed methodology could be developed within the period described.

AIM The purpose of this in vivo study will be to measure the influence of different scanning strategies (zigzag with conventional scan body, circumferential with conventional scan body, surface blocking with conventional scan body, zigzag with low profile scan body, standard strategy with low profile scan body) on the accuracy of the records obtained for a case of fixed rehabilitation on full-arch dental implants.

HYPOTHESIS The null hypothesis will be that there are no significant differences in scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) between the different groups of digital impressions compared to the reference model (conventional impression with rigid splinting).

The alternative hypothesis will be that there are significant differences in scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) between the different groups of digital impressions compared to the reference model (conventional impression with rigid splinting).

MATERIAL AND METHOD A patient will be selected who is susceptible to rehabilitation with a fixed prosthesis on implants, in good general health (ASA I and ASA II), without joint problems or limitation of opening, and who, after reading the information sheet, the patient and informed consent, and clarified any doubts, voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

A reference model will be taken with a high-precision conventional methodology such as Rigid Impression Splinting. A first impression will be taken with double-mix addition silicone (putty and fluid) with an open tray. From this record, a first model will be generated that will be used to splint the impression transfers with a rigid, low-shrinkage light-curing material, which will later be sectioned with discs. Subsequently, the transfers will be screwed with the splint in the mouth and rejoined using a low-shrinkage light-curing material, thus minimizing the possibility of accumulation of errors. A second impression will be taken dragging the entire set, and it will be cast in improved type IV plaster (GC Fujirock; GC), thus obtaining the master model. This model will be digitized using a laboratory scanner to get the reference digital model, against which the specimens resulting from the experimental groups will be compared.

Six experimental groups will be created based on the strategy-scan body used (1.- zigzag with conventional scan body (ZZ-SBL), 2.- circumferential with conventional scan body (C-SBL), 3.- surface blocking with scan conventional body (B-SBL), 4.- zigzag with low profile scan body (ZZ-SBL), 5.- a standard strategy with low profile scan body (STD-SBL), 6.- single pass with low profile scan body ( OP-SBL) These experimental groups will be scanned directly in the patient's mouth, to be compared with the reference model, called the "master model".

Based on previous studies, a sample size of n=15 is estimated for each group. A pilot study will be carried out with n=5, from which a statistical test (G* Power; University of Düsseldorf) will be carried out to calculate the sample size. All digitization procedures will be performed under lighting conditions of 1000 lux measured with a lux meter (LX1330B Light Meter; Dr. Meter Digital Illuminance) and at a constant temperature of 24 +/-2 ºC. Once the files are obtained, they will be exported with the reference format for a 3-dimensional.STL (standard tessellation language) file to a metrology program (Geomagic Control X). The results will be compared with a reference file, and the deviations of the implant positions will be obtained using the best-fit algorithm. The mean square error (Root Mean Square) will be calculated.

statistical plan Statistical tests will be developed to check the normal distribution of the samples, Shapiro-Wilk or Kolmogorov-Smirnov type. A priori tests will be carried out to verify the existence of statistically significant differences, and a posteriori for analyzing which groups such differences appear and their magnitude. Statistical power will be 95%, so those with p<.05 will be considered statistically significant differences. All statistical analysis will be performed using a statistical software program (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, v26; IBM Corp).

VARIABLES COLLECTED AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIONS TO BE CARRIED OUT AND FINAL DESTINATION OF THE SAMPLES The collected variable is the discrepancy in the position of the implants between the control model, reference, and the experimental groups, quantified as a Root Mean Square. The samples, in this case, files, will be saved anonymously on a hard drive, named so that the group to which they belong and the number of samples can be interpreted (Example: ZZ-SBL1). The scanning time and the number of frames will also be collected.

SCHEDULE December 2022-March 2023: collection, sample preparation, development of experimental methodology, and data collection.

April 2023-July 2023: Statistical analysis and writing of the manuscript.

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS To the best of the research team's knowledge, the most significant ethical implication lies in carrying out several recordings of the same patient. In this regard, it should be noted that, in addition to meeting the inclusion requirements, the participant wishes to participate completely voluntarily and know that the participant will not obtain any compensation, financial or in any other way. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that intraoral record-taking procedures with intraoral scanners can be considered harmless and painless, which simply means that the patient must keep his mouth open during the procedure.

Being tested
intraoral scan
Keywords
Accuracy, intraoral scanners, digital impressions, complete arch, implant-supported dental prostheses

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • intraoral scanDevice

    All the experimental groups will be developed with an intraoral scanner, a device that emits light and collects the image projected by that light, to build a 3-dimensional digital model. It is more comfortable than conventional impressions and it is a harmless, non-intrusive, and painless procedure.

Study groups in NCT05985226
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
scanning strategiesExperimental6 experimental groups will be created based on the strategy-scan body used (1.- zigzag with conventional scan body (ZZ-SBL), 2.- circumferential with conventional scan body (C-SBL), 3.- surface blocking with scan conventional body (B-SBL), 4.- zigzag with low profile scan body (ZZ-SBL), 5.- a standard strategy with low profile scan body (STD-SBL), 6.- single pass with low profile scan body ( OP-SBL) These experimental groups will be scanned directly in the patient's mouth, to later be compared with the reference model, called the "master model".
Receives: Device: intraoral scan

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Accuracy

    Micrometers (root mean square deviations)

    Measured: Up to 1 year

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Number of photograms

    Number of images

    Measured: Up to 1 year

  2. clinical scan time

    Seconds (s)

    Measured: Up to 1 year

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted14 Aug 2023
  2. Study start1 Apr 2023
  3. Primary completion31 Aug 2023 (estimated)
  4. Study completionSep 2023 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
1 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT05985226
Sponsor's protocol ID
C.I. 22/645-E
Acronym
strategiesIOS
Status last verified
Nov 2022
First submitted
6 Jul 2023
Last updated
14 Aug 2023
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Publications

  • Gomez-Polo M, Cascos R, Ortega R, Barmak AB, Kois JC, Revilla-Leon M. Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Jun;34(6):591-601. doi: 10.1111/clr.14069. Epub 2023 Apr 13.

    PubMed 37052054
  • Zhang YJ, Shi JY, Qian SJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2021 May 12;14(2):157-179.

    PubMed 34006079
  • Rignon-Bret C, Wulfman C, Hadida A, Renouard F, Gourraud PA, Naveau A. Immediate Loading of Two Unsplinted Implants in Edentulous Patients with Mandibular Overdentures: A 10-year Retrospective Review of Patients from a Previously Conducted 1-year Cohort Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Jan/Feb;34(1):169-178. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6931.

    PubMed 30695092
  • Tabesh M, Nejatidanesh F, Savabi G, Davoudi A, Savabi O. Marginal Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Full-Coverage Single Crowns Made by Direct and Indirect Digital or Conventional Workflows: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2022 Dec;31(9):744-753. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13515. Epub 2022 May 10.

    PubMed 35344238
  • Schimmel M, Akino N, Srinivasan M, Wittneben JG, Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Apr;25(4):1839-1847. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03486-z. Epub 2020 Aug 19.

    PubMed 32812098
  • Sallorenzo A, Gomez-Polo M. Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Nov;128(5):1009-1016. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.032. Epub 2021 Apr 7.

    PubMed 33836855
  • Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, Chochlidakis K. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020 Oct;29(8):660-678. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13211. Epub 2020 Jul 16.

    PubMed 32613641
  • Revilla-Leon M, Gohil A, Barmak AB, Zandinejad A, Raigrodski AJ, Alonso Perez-Barquero J. Best-Fit Algorithm Influences on Virtual Casts' Alignment Discrepancies. J Prosthodont. 2023 Apr;32(4):331-339. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13537. Epub 2022 Jun 6.

    PubMed 35524587
  • Revilla-Leon M, Young K, Sicilia E, Cho SH, Kois JC. Influence of definitive and interim restorative materials and surface finishing on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner. J Dent. 2022 May;120:104114. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104114. Epub 2022 Mar 28.

    PubMed 35358659
  • Revilla-Leon M, Sicilia E, Agustin-Panadero R, Gomez-Polo M, Kois JC. Clinical evaluation of the effects of cutting off, overlapping, and rescanning procedures on intraoral scanning accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Nov;130(5):746-754. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.10.017. Epub 2022 Jan 6.

    PubMed 34998582
  • Revilla-Leon M, Gohil A, Barmak AB, Gomez-Polo M, Perez-Barquero JA, Att W, Kois JC. Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Nov;130(5):755-760. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.012. Epub 2022 Feb 21.

    PubMed 35210107
  • Revilla-Leon M, Quesada-Olmo N, Gomez-Polo M, Sicilia E, Farjas-Abadia M, Kois JC. Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study. J Dent. 2021 Dec;115:103851. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103851. Epub 2021 Oct 15.

    PubMed 34656658
  • Revilla-Leon M, Subramanian SG, Att W, Krishnamurthy VR. Analysis of Different Illuminance of the Room Lighting Condition on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of An Intraoral Scanner. J Prosthodont. 2021 Feb;30(2):157-162. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13276. Epub 2020 Nov 7.

    PubMed 33094878
  • Revilla-Leon M, Frazier K, da Costa JB, Kumar P, Duong ML, Khajotia S, Urquhart O; Council on Scientific Affairs. Intraoral scanners: An American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators Panel survey. J Am Dent Assoc. 2021 Aug;152(8):669-670.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2021.05.018.

    PubMed 34325781
  • Revilla-Leon M, Subramanian SG, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Lighting Conditions on the Mesh Quality of an Intraoral Scanner. J Prosthodont. 2020 Oct;29(8):651-655. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13205. Epub 2020 Jun 20.

    PubMed 32463965

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing intraoral scan in people with Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, run by Universidad Complutense de Madrid at 1 site in Spain.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Aug 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Miguel Gómez-Polo, PhD, DDS (+34 659390001, mgomezpo@ucm.es), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Accuracy (time frame: Up to 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05985226, which also lists 45 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Aug 2023.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in