Implant PlacementNCT06571968
Accuracy of Computer Guided Four Implants Placement in Completely Edentulous Mandible
A study testing fully guided stent and semiguided stent in people with Implant Placement, run by Mansoura University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
Thirty-six completely edentulous healthy patients received four mandibular implants and were randomly divided into the following groups: (A) The implants were installed by fully guided stereolithographic stent (n = 18), and (B) The implants were installed by semi-guided stereolithographic stent. (n = 18). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 58 to 68 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Implant Placement
- What is being tested?
- fully guided stent and semiguided stent
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 36 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 14 May 2023to 2 Feb 2024
- 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 58 to 68 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All patient wearing maxillary conventional denture.
- All patients had temporary mandibular overdenture supported by vertically inserted 4-implant at least six months ago.
- They were healthy, free from any systemic diseases relating to bone resorption such as uncontrolled diabetics or osteoporosis. This was achieved through medical history and clinical examination by physician.
- All patients are of angel's class I maxillo-mandibular relationships.
Who cannot join
- Patients had head and neck radiotherapy, patients with bleeding disorders or hepatic patients.
- Patients with metabolic disorders as diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis and hepatic disorders that might affect osseointegration.
- Long term immunosuppress and corticosteroid drug therapy.
- Patient with abnormal habits as clenching and bruxism.
- Smoking patient.
- Patient with problems in TMJ
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Accuracy of Computer Guided Four Implants Placement in Completely Edentulous Mandible by Using Fully Versus Semi Guided Prototyped Surgical Stent
Thirty-six completely edentulous healthy patients received four mandibular implants and were randomly divided into the following groups: (A) The implants were installed by fully guided stereolithographic stent (n = 18), and (B) The implants were installed by semi-guided stereolithographic stent. (n = 18). The accuracy analysis was performed by one experienced process engineer (DB). Cone beam computed tomography was performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative linear and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants.
Read the detailed description
Objectives: Current study aimed to assess the accuracy of fully- guided implant placement in completely lower edentulous patients compared to the semi-guided protocol.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six completely edentulous healthy patients received four mandibular implants and were randomly divided into the following groups: (A) The implants were installed by fully guided stereolithographic stent (n = 18), and (B) The implants were installed by semi-guided stereolithographic stent. (n = 18). The accuracy analysis was performed by one experienced process engineer (DB). Cone beam computed tomography was performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative linear and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants. Measurements and analysis of results were performed by means of a software tool used during virtual planning (P3Dental; Protótipos).
- Conditions
- Implant Placement
- Being tested
- fully guided stent, semiguided stent
- Keywords
- Fully-guided surgical stent, semi-guided surgical stent, accuracy analysis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
fully guided stentDevice
All surgical procedures with drills were done through the stent., the implant was picked up from the implant holder and then installed, still with the surgical guide in situ, by using the ratchet and ratchet connector at a motor speed of 20 rpm, followed by cover screw placement without the need for sutures.
semiguided stentDevice
The first osteotomy was performed with the surgical guide in situ using a 1.95 mm pilot-drill. Successive color coded implant drills were used to prepare implant osteotomies. When using each twist drill, a removable sleeve having a diameter to coincide with the drill and inserted into the sleeve of the surgical guide.
The stereo lithographic guide template was removed and the receptor sites were irrigated with saline solution then the final drill of the implant system 3.5 mm diameter was used to finalize the osteotomy. The implant was gripped with the placement aid, released from the implant holder by 1/4 turn and manually inserted into the prepared implant site using a finger placement tool or hand ratchet. A torque of 45 N cm should not be exceeded during insertion procedure and cover screws were screwed over it.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| fully guided surgical technique | Other | The guides were designed with metal sleeves for guided drilling and guided implant placement and additional guide sleeves for the stabilization of the template by fixation screws.The implant width and length were selected for each patient according to previous 3d cone beam, and the drills of this kit were 11 mm longer than conventional drills. The surgery was performed without flap elevation. The guide was seated and fixed by means of 2-mm cortical screws in the buccal region after using of the corresponding drills. Receives: Device: fully guided stent |
| semi guided surgical technique | Other | The guides were designed with metal sleeves for guided drilling and guided implant placement and additional guide sleeves for the stabilization of the template by fixation screws.The implant width and length were selected for each patient according to previous 3d cone beam, and the drills of this kit were 11 mm longer than conventional drills.The surgery was performed without flap elevation. The stent was removed before the final drilling Receives: Device: semiguided stent |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Radio graphic evaluation (Angular deviation)
For both groups, postoperative CBCT scan was performed after implant placement. The same parameters of preoperative CBCT were followed according to the patient's position, image acquisition, and use of the same apparatus. This scan was performed with the same dental prosthesis as that used for the initial preoperative CBCT scanning, equipped with the gutta percha references, for superimposition of the images. The previously fabricated occlusal registration was used to align the prosthesis. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative horizontal (Mesiodistal and buccolingual), vertical and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants.
Measured: one year
Secondary outcomes (1)
Radio graphic evaluation (linear deviation)
For both groups, postoperative CBCT scan was performed after implant placement. The same parameters of preoperative CBCT were followed according to the patient's position, image acquisition, and use of the same apparatus. This scan was performed with the same dental prosthesis as that used for the initial preoperative CBCT scanning, equipped with the gutta percha references, for superimposition of the images. The previously fabricated occlusal registration was used to align the prosthesis. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative horizontal (Mesiodistal and buccolingual) measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants.
Measured: one year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Aug 2024
- Study start14 May 2023
- Primary completion3 Jan 2024
- Study completion2 Feb 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Implant PlacementStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mansoura UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- randomized controlled clinical trial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 36 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mansoura University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- marwa aboelez, Phd, Study chair, Mansoura UniversityHassan Kheriba, Msd, Study director, Mansoura University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06571968
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- M05010322
- Status last verified
- Jul 2024
- First submitted
- 8 Aug 2024
- Last updated
- 1 May 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: statistical analysis plan
Publications
Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-Lopez PL, Ortiz-Culca F, Guerrero ME, Amaya-Pajares SP. Techniques for retrievability and for registering screw access holes in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: A scoping review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Mar;123(3):427-433. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.011. Epub 2019 Jul 12.
PubMed 31307803
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 May 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Accuracy of Computer Guided Four Implants Placement in Completely Edentulous Mandible by Using Fully Versus Semi Guided Prototyped Surgical Stent
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06571968
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- M05010322
- Conditions
- Implant Placement
- Keywords
- Fully-guided surgical stent, semi-guided surgical stent, accuracy analysis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 36 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mansoura UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 14 May 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 3 Jan 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Feb 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Aug 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Thirty-six completely edentulous healthy patients received four mandibular implants and were randomly divided into the following groups: (A) The implants were installed by fully guided stereolithographic stent (n = 18), and (B) The implants were installed by semi-guided stereolithographic stent. (n = 18). The accuracy analysis was performed by one experienced process engineer (DB). Cone beam computed tomography was performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative linear and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants.
Detailed description
Objectives: Current study aimed to assess the accuracy of fully- guided implant placement in completely lower edentulous patients compared to the semi-guided protocol.
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six completely edentulous healthy patients received four mandibular implants and were randomly divided into the following groups: (A) The implants were installed by fully guided stereolithographic stent (n = 18), and (B) The implants were installed by semi-guided stereolithographic stent. (n = 18). The accuracy analysis was performed by one experienced process engineer (DB). Cone beam computed tomography was performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative linear and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants. Measurements and analysis of results were performed by means of a software tool used during virtual planning (P3Dental; Protótipos).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- randomized controlled clinical trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| fully guided surgical technique | Other | Device: fully guided stentThe guides were designed with metal sleeves for guided drilling and guided implant placement and additional guide sleeves for the stabilization of the template by fixation screws.The implant width and length were selected for each patient according to previous 3d cone beam, and the drills of this kit were 11 mm longer than conventional drills. The surgery was performed without flap elevation. The guide was seated and fixed by means of 2-mm cortical screws in the buccal region after using of the corresponding drills. |
| semi guided surgical technique | Other | Device: semiguided stentThe guides were designed with metal sleeves for guided drilling and guided implant placement and additional guide sleeves for the stabilization of the template by fixation screws.The implant width and length were selected for each patient according to previous 3d cone beam, and the drills of this kit were 11 mm longer than conventional drills.The surgery was performed without flap elevation. The stent was removed before the final drilling |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 58 to 68 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- All patient wearing maxillary conventional denture.
- All patients had temporary mandibular overdenture supported by vertically inserted 4-implant at least six months ago.
- They were healthy, free from any systemic diseases relating to bone resorption such as uncontrolled diabetics or osteoporosis. This was achieved through medical history and clinical examination by physician.
- All patients are of angel's class I maxillo-mandibular relationships.
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients had head and neck radiotherapy, patients with bleeding disorders or hepatic patients.
- Patients with metabolic disorders as diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis and hepatic disorders that might affect osseointegration.
- Long term immunosuppress and corticosteroid drug therapy.
- Patient with abnormal habits as clenching and bruxism.
- Smoking patient.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| fully guided stentAll surgical procedures with drills were done through the stent., the implant was picked up from the implant holder and then installed, still with the surgical guide in situ, by using the ratchet and ratchet connector at a motor speed of 20 rpm, followed by cover screw placement without the need for sutures. | Device | fully guided surgical technique |
| semiguided stentThe first osteotomy was performed with the surgical guide in situ using a 1.95 mm pilot-drill. Successive color coded implant drills were used to prepare implant osteotomies. When using each twist drill, a removable sleeve having a diameter to coincide with the drill and inserted into the sleeve of the surgical guide. The stereo lithographic guide template was removed and the receptor sites were irrigated with saline solution then the final drill of the implant system 3.5 mm diameter was used to finalize the osteotomy. The implant was gripped with the placement aid, released from the implant holder by 1/4 turn and manually inserted into the prepared implant site using a finger placement tool or hand ratchet. A torque of 45 N cm should not be exceeded during insertion procedure and cover screws were screwed over it. | Device | semi guided surgical technique |
Primary outcome
Radio graphic evaluation (Angular deviation)
Time frame: one year
For both groups, postoperative CBCT scan was performed after implant placement. The same parameters of preoperative CBCT were followed according to the patient's position, image acquisition, and use of the same apparatus. This scan was performed with the same dental prosthesis as that used for the initial preoperative CBCT scanning, equipped with the gutta percha references, for superimposition of the images. The previously fabricated occlusal registration was used to align the prosthesis. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative horizontal (Mesiodistal and buccolingual), vertical and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants.
1 secondary outcome
Radio graphic evaluation (linear deviation)
Time frame: one year
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 May 2025.
- Results publication: PubMed 31307803Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-Lopez PL, Ortiz-Culca F, Guerrero ME, Amaya-Pajares SP. Techniques for retrievability and for registering screw access holes in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: A scoping review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Mar;123(3):427-433. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.011. Epub 2019 Jul 12.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. statistical analysis plan
Related trials for Implant Placement
Not yet recruiting
A Randomized Controlled SaCo-VLM Trial
General Anaesthesia Using Supraglotic Airway
Not yet recruiting
Tizanidine Premedication Versus Placebo for Laryngeal Mask Airway Insertion and Recovery in Adults Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery
Airway Management
Enrolling by invitation
Comparison of Functional Results of ADM X3-MoP Cup (Stryker) and a CoC Cup (Zimmer) in Young Patients
Arthroplasties, Hip Replacement
Not yet recruiting
Biodegradable Magnesium Screws for Unstable Ankle Fracture Surgery
Ankle Fractures, Syndesmotic Injury
Not yet recruiting
Free Soft Tissue Grafts (FSTG) Using Autograft Palatal Donor Tissue vs. Xenograft Collagen Matrix (Zderm™)
Gingival Recession Localized Moderate, Dental Implant
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
marwa aboelez, Phd study chair
Mansoura University
Hassan Kheriba, Msd study director
Mansoura University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing fully guided stent and semiguided stent in people with Implant Placement, run by Mansoura University at 1 site in Egypt.
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 4 inclusion and 6 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 May 2025. 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 Egypt. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Radio graphic evaluation (Angular deviation) (time frame: one 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 NCT06571968, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 1 May 2025.