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. 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.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Accuracy
Timeframe: Up to 1 year