The goal of this study is to evaluate two commonly utilized surgical guide protocols to determine dental implant placement accuracy compared to pre-operative computerized planning, post-operative healing and bone levels to 12-months post-placement, and patient assessed post-operative discomfort and healing using a visual acuity scale (VAS).
English speaking
At least 18 years old
Must be a patient of the UAB Dental School
Able to read and understand informed consent document
Non-English speaking
Less than 18 years old
Smokers/tobacco users (>10 cigarettes/day)
Patients with systemic pathologies or conditions contraindicating oral surgical procedures or adversely affecting wound healing
Parallel
Pilot Drill Guide (PDG)
Procedure/SurgeryMatrix-based pilot drill guides fabricated using casts derived from digital wax ups of the proposed final restoration based upon initial implant planning and will be placed using the standard manufacturer's protocol.
Fully Guided (FG)
Procedure/Surgery3-D printed guides fabricated based upon digital wax ups and will be placed using the standard manufacturer's protocol and guided implant placement kits.
Implant placement deviation from computerized planning
Implant placement deviation from computerized planning at 12-month post-placement using CBCT overlay measurement techniques.
Radiographic marginal bone loss
Radiographic marginal bone loss as measured using digital measurement tools and calibrated parallel two-dimensional radiographic images from baseline dental implant placement to 12-months post-implant placement
Patient centered outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS
Patient centered outcomes including pain, bleeding, swelling, change in daily activities at 7, 14, and 30 days postoperatively, using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) This measurement ranges from 0-10 (0 being better and 10 being worse).
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options:
