View clinical trials related to Jaw, Edentulous.
Filter by:- Background Patients experiencing problems with their conventional maxillary denture can benefit from implant- retained overdentures. Several retention systems are available. These retention systems can be roughly divided into bar-retained implant overdentures, in which multiple implants are splinted and the overdenture is attached through retentive clips, and into retention systems using non-splinted solitary attachments (locators). Evidence on maxillary implant overdenture attachment systems has been mostly short to medium term, non-comparing or retrospective. Even more, 10-years data of comparative studies are lacking. - Main research question To compare treatment outcomes of fully edentulous patients with maxillary overdentures, supported by four implants, retained by either bars or locators . The primary objective of the study is to analyze marginal bone level changes by radiological assessments at 10-years follow-up. Secondary objectives are implant and overdenture survival, condition of peri- implant mucosa and patients' satisfaction. - Design (including population, confounders/outcomes) The study design is an observational study of a group of patients which were treated 10 years ago with dental implants and an overdenture in the maxilla because of problems with retention and stability with their conventional denture. Outcomes: primary outcome is the change in marginal peri-implant bone level 10 years after placing the overdenture. Secondary outcome measures will be implant and overdenture survival, peri-implant mucosa health and patients' satisfaction using a questionnaire.
the aim of this study is to compare the influence of different palatal vault configurations on the accuracy and scan speed of IO scans in cases of completely edentulous arches. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in scanning time, and trueness and precision of IO scans between class I, II and III palatal vault configurations.
Fourteen completely edentulous patients will be randomly allocated into two parallel arm groups. For both groups virtual implant planning will be done and surgical guide will be planned and printed. An immediate interim full arch PMMA prosthesis will be virtually designed and printed for both groups. For the Intraoral welding group, seven patients will receive immediately loaded interim fixed full arch prosthesis splinted by intraoral welded bar. While for PEEK group in which seven patients will receive immediately loaded interim fixed full arch prosthesis splinted by PEEK bar. Marginal bone loss will be clinically evaluated at four, six months follow up period using CBCT.
This is a single-center, single-group, prospective clinical trial testing a partially-guided protocol for placement of mini implants overdentures in the edentulous maxilla. Eligible participants will be subjects with an edentulous maxilla, wearing a conventional complete denture. Participants will receive six mini implants (Straumann® Mini Implant System, Institut Straumann AG, Switzerland) for retention of a maxillary overdenture. The six mini implant protocol will be virtually planned for an even distribution of the implants bilaterally, with a minimum of 5 mm distance between contiguous implants. The available lengths of the mini implants are 10, 12, and 14 mm, and the appropriate length will be selected according to the bony anatomical situation. In addition, the distribution and axial position of the mini implants will be planned to achieve the best biomechanical distribution and the most parallel position between implants, perpendicular to the occlusal plane and path of insertion of the prosthesis. The primary outcome will be the accuracy of the implant position using the partially-guided protocol. Assessment of the accuracy of the methods will be based on the measure of the difference between the actual and the planned position of the mini implants, based on the measurement of (1) the global deviations at the coronal and apical regions of the mini implants, (2) the vertical deviation, and (3) the apical angle deviation. Overall impacts of treatment on oral health-related quality of life will be assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile instrument for edentulous subjects (OHIP-EDENT). Additional outcomes will include implant survival and success rates, incidence of prosthodontic complications and peri-implant measurements.
According to data from the World Health Organization, approximately 160 million people worldwide are edentulous. The incidence increases with age, and the proportion of edentulous patients is higher in the population aged 60 and above. Loss of teeth or edentulism can affect facial appearance, causing people to feel self-conscious and loss confidence in social situations, and even lead to psychological illnesses. Therefore, edentulous patients not only pay close attention to the recovery of oral function but also attach great importance to facial contour improvement. For a long time, due to technological limitations, clinicians have been unable to depict the changes in facial contour after implant placement for patients before surgery. However, with the development of artificial intelligence technology, deep learning-based methods for predicting soft tissue facial deformation have made this mission a possibility. This study established a multi-modal dataset for edentulous patients before and after implant restoration to lay the foundation for predicting facial contour changes after implant treatment. A graph generative adversarial network based on multi-modal data was proposed to achieve fast and high-precision facial contour prediction. To address the common challenges of slow computation and excessive computational resource consumption in current triangular mesh deformation simulation methods, this project innovatively proposed a graph generative adversarial network that uses multi-modal data and incorporates self-attention mechanisms to achieve fast and high-precision facial contour prediction for edentulous patients after implant restoration.
The study was a prospective, multicentre, randomized parallel controlled clinical trial. Randomisation was conducted by central randomisation, with random allocation codes generated by the main central computer. Enrollment was conducted by competition between different centres. In this study, the coronal, apical and angular deviations (mean, standard deviation, median, quartiles, minimum, maximum, 95% confidence interval) of the static template and dynamic navigation group guided implant placement were calculated. The data is proposed to be analysed using a mixed linear effects model.
A total of 34 participants, who require replacement of an anterior or posterior single tooth with dental implant, will be randomly allocated to two equal sized groups. In the control group, the osteotomy site preparation will be prepared by using conventional surgical drills, while the test group site preparation will involve the use of Densah™ Burs (Versah Co., LLC., USA) as per the osseodensification protocol. In addition to evaluating implant stability, the trial will also report on implant and patient outcomes at various time points.
The goal of this cross-over clinical trial is to investigate the precision of digital implant impressions using an intraoral scanner and photogrammetry in obtaining complete-arch implant-supported scans. The main question[s] it aims to answer are: - Is there a difference in precision between intraoral scans and photogrammetry in obtaining digital implant scans? - Will arch perimeter and jaw type (maxilla vs. mandible) affect the precision results? Procedures: At each appointment, participants existing permanent/temporary prosthesis or healing caps were unscrewed and temporarily removed for the period of the consultation appointment. Scanbodies were screwed into their implants for the duration of the appointment. They underwent two types of digital implant impression procedures (five times each), including intraoral scan and photogrammetry. Intraoral and extraoral photography were taken. At the end of each appointment, the scanbodies were removed, and existing bridge/healing caps were reinserted. The procedures were not painful or required any form of local anesthetic Comparison group: Researchers compared the precision of intraoral scanning vs. photogrammetry to see which device provided the best precision outcomes.
This clinical trial aims to compare the performance of CAD/CAM-milled and 3D-printed full-arch implant-supported provisional restorations in patients at the Advanced Implant Prosthetics Clinic of the Complutense University of Madrid, of both sexes, over 18 years of age, edentulous upper, lower or both, whose treatment plan is at least a fixed implant-supported rehabilitation of the complete arch. The main question it aims to answer is if there are differences in the mechanical behavior and optical properties of the materials used as provisional materials in full-arch restorations on implants fabricated by CAD/CAM technology through machining or 3D printing. Participants will: - Receive milled (control material: PMMA; Multilayer PMMA block, HUGE; Shandong Huge Dental Material Corporation) or printed (test material: 3D impression resin; VarseoSmile Temp, Bego Bremer Goldschägerei Wilh. Herbst GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen) and they will be in provisional phase for 3 months doing daily life. Researchers will compare PMMA (Multilayer PMMA block, HUGE; Shandong Huge Dental Material Corporation) and the printed-resin (3D impression resin; VarseoSmile Temp, Bego Bremer Goldschägerei Wilh. Herbst GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen) to see: - Mechanical behavior and the absence of complications, fracture of the structure, material jumping or wear, loosening, or detachment. - Optical properties, initial color, and degradation of the materials used
Purpose: To compare the loss of peri-implant tissue by means of radiographic and digital analysis of a zirconia prosthesis placed immediately and delay loading. Materials and methods: 60 consecutive patients with the need for a full-arch rehabilitation were selected and divided randomly into two groups: Group A: Conventional dental extraction, placement of 6 to 8 implants. Placement of the multi-unit prosthetic attachment and finally in the same week the placement of the definitive monolithic zirconia prosthesis on implants. Group B: Conventional dental extraction, placement of 6 to 8 implants. Placement of prosthetic and provisional attachment. After 3 months, place the definitive prosthesis. Assess volumetric changes using radiographic and optical scan techniques. The number of implant failures, prosthetic incidents and bone loss around the implants will be evaluated. The data will be evaluated 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation.