Accuracy of complete-arch implant scans with two non-calibrated splinting systems
Official title: Accuracy of Complete-Arch Implant Scans Using Two Non-Calibrated Splinting Systems: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Study of IoConnect and Scan Pro
Run by Menoufia University · NCT07862218 · Data updated 2026-11-12
This study compares two non-calibrated splinting methods (IoConnect vs Scan Pro) to see which one gives more accurate complete-arch implant scans and shorter chairside time in people who have four stable, integrated implants.
Quick facts
| Study type | Interventional |
|---|---|
| Ages | 40 Years to 70 Years |
| Sex | All |
| Enrollment | 24 (estimated) |
| Sponsor | Menoufia University Academic / other |
| Locations | 1 site (Shibīn al Kawm, Menoufia) |
| Status | Recruiting |
| Started | January 1, 2026 |
| Main results expected | January 1, 2027 |
| Study ends | February 1, 2027 |
| Registry record updated | October 13, 2026 |
| Trial ID | NCT07862218 on ClinicalTrials.gov |
Is this trial a fit for you?
✓Likely a good fit
Adults (18+) who are completely edentulous with four stable, osseointegrated implants connected to multiunit abutments, and are able to undergo intraoral scanning.
✕Probably not a fit
Patients with fewer or more than four implants, unstable implants, active peri-implant infection, or limited mouth opening may not benefit from this study.
A plain-English reading of the study's rules. Only the study team can confirm whether you qualify.
What this trial studies
In this randomized crossover trial, completely edentulous participants with four well-integrated implants will be scanned using two non-calibrated splinting systems. Each participant will receive scans with both protocols in random order, and results will be compared to a verified reference impression digitized into a reference model. Primary outcomes are linear and angular accuracy of the digital scans relative to the reference, along with the chairside time required for each scanning method. A conventional, validated reference impression will establish the baseline for accuracy. The study aims to determine if one system provides more accurate digital impressions or saves time during the procedure.
Why it matters
Potential benefit: If one system proves more accurate or faster, patients could benefit from more reliable digital impressions and shorter appointment times for implant-supported prostheses.
How similar studies have gone: Previous work has explored non-calibrated splinting approaches, with mixed results; this study adds a direct, randomized crossover comparison in a fully edentulous population.
Who can join: the full rules
Show full inclusion / exclusion criteria
Inclusion Criteria * Adults aged 18 years or older. * Completely edentulous maxilla or mandible. * Four clinically stable and osseointegrated implants restored with multiunit abutments. * Patients with a screw-retained interim prosthesis or patients scheduled to receive a definitive complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis. * Ability to undergo intraoral scanning procedures and provide written informed consent. Exclusion Criteria * Fewer or more than four implants in the evaluated arch. * Failed or clinically unstable implants. * Active peri-implant infection or suppuration. * Limited mouth opening that prevents completion of the intraoral scanning procedures. * Inability or unwillingness to provide written informed consent.
Where it's running
-
Faculty of Dentistry, Menoufia University
Shibīn al Kawm, Menoufia, Egypt Recruiting
Study contacts
- Principal investigator: Mohammed El-Sawy, PhD — Menoufia, Faculty of Dentistry
- Study coordinator: Mohammed A. El-Sawy, PhD
- Email: Dr_Sawy@windowslive.com
- Phone: 00201061314522
Similar studies
Other studies for the same condition or treatment. Recruiting studies are listed first.
-
Comparison of Non-Calibrated Splinting Scan Bodies and a T-Marker for Full-Arch Implant Scanning
Researchers are testing two digital methods to record implant positions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses in fully edentulous patients to see which is faster and more accurate.
-
Nutritional Support for Older Adults with Complete Dentures
A 40-person study tests a multidimensional nutritional program to see if it improves diet, nutrition, chewing, muscle health, saliva markers, cognitive performance, and oral-health quality of life in older adults who wear complete dentures.
-
Which material for All-on-Four implants? Zantex vs Zirconia in full-arch dentures
This study tests whether Zantex or Zirconia frameworks lead to better gum health and less bacterial buildup around All-on-Four dental implants in people with no teeth.
-
3D printing orientation and layer thickness for maxillary complete dentures
This study tests how different 3D printing angles and layer thicknesses affect denture accuracy and patient satisfaction in people who need full upper dentures.
-
Prosthetic options for full-arch implant cases in complete tooth loss: zirconia vs titanium frameworks
This trial tests whether full-arch screw-retained implants with monolithic zirconia frameworks perform better or worse than CNC-milled titanium frameworks with a zirconia superstructure in people who have no teeth.
-
3D-printed dentures using digital vs hybrid workflows in full-arch dentures
This study tests two 3D-printed denture fabrication methods (digital and hybrid) in adults who are completely without teeth to see which setup provides better fit, comfort, and quality of life.
How to take part
- Review the eligibility criteria above with your treating physician.
- Check the official listing on ClinicalTrials.gov for the latest contact details and recruitment status.
- Contact the study coordinator or principal investigator to ask for pre-screening. Pre-screening is free and never obligates you to enroll.