Assessment of the Accuracy of Surgical Guide Designed From Dental Model Optical Scan Versus Impression Inversion With Markers Techniques in Computer Guided Implantology. Randomized Clinical Trial.

NCT03367949 · Status: UNKNOWN · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 10

Last updated 2017-12-12

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Dental model cast accuracy can be affected by many variables as tray material, impression material and time elapsed before pouring the impression. All these factors would affect the accuracy of the surgical guide

Impression inversion with markers technique avoids the dimension changes that may happen from pouring of the dental model cast. Also it saves time as no need for optical scan of the model cast and for scan appliance even in cases of multiple restoration. Adding markers to impression tray ensures an accurate merge even if the patient has restored dentition that may cause scatter during the CT/CBCT scan.

This study will is for Assessment of the Accuracy of Surgical Guide designed from Dental Model Optical Scan versus Impression Inversion with Markers techniques in Computer Guided Implantology.

Conditions

  • Accuracy of Surgical Guide in Computer Guided Implantology

Interventions

OTHER

Surgical guide designed from Impression inversion with markers

Rather than using optical scan of the cast , We will use impression inversion technique with VPS impression and adding CBCT Markers on the tray

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Cairo University

    lead OTHER

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2017-07-01
Primary Completion
2018-03-15
Completion
2018-04-01

Countries

  • Egypt

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT03367949 on ClinicalTrials.gov