Please sign in to follow a disease.
Digital vs. goo: which dental impression is more accurate?
NCT ID NCT07252869
First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026
Summary
This study tested how accurate digital scanners and traditional gooey impressions are for making dental implants. Researchers compared two digital scanners and a standard putty-like material against a high-precision lab scan. They used 51 dental models from 42 patients to see which method matched best.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.
- What this could lead to
- If digital scanners prove accurate enough, dentists may rely more on them for implants, reducing patient discomfort and improving workflow.
- What could go wrong
- This is a small, completed study with 51 models. Results may not apply to all patients or scanners, and real-world factors could affect accuracy.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Study facts
What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.
- Participants
-
51 people
The number who actually took part.
- Started
-
Jul 2017
- Finished
-
Dec 2022
- Lead sponsor
-
Other sponsor
The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.
Who can take part
This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.
Who is studied
The study population consisted of patients seeking implant treatment at the Implantology and Prosthodontics Department of the Giorgio Vogel Odontostomatological Clinic, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan.
- Ages
-
18 to 80 years
- Sex
-
Anyone
- Healthy volunteers
-
Accepted
You do not need to have the condition being studied to take part.
Show the full entry requirements Hide the full entry requirements
Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.
Inclusion Criteria: * Age between 18 and 80 years; * Implant placement in healed bone sites (at least 8 weeks post-tooth extraction or at least 6 months after regenerative procedures), allowing guided implant insertion of at least 3.3 mm in diameter or 8.5 mm in length; * Implant site without ongoing infections or dental extraction residues; * Good systemic health conditions and adequate oral hygiene; * Periapical and periodontal health of opposing teeth/implants in occlusion; * Edentulism of at least two adjacent dental elements. Exclusion Criteria: * Ongoing diseases requiring prolonged use of corticosteroids; * Leukocyte dysfunction or deficiencies; * Severe hemophilia; * Current pregnancy; * Past and/or current head/neck radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy; * Renal insufficiency; * Past and/or current use of bisphosphonates; * Uncompensated endocrine disorders; * Physical disabilities preventing adequate oral hygiene; * Alcohol abuse and drug use; * Smokers (\>10 cigarettes/day); * Untreated periodontitis; * Mucosal diseases (e.g., erosive Lichen Planus); * Severe parafunctional habits (e.g., bruxism or clenching); * Persistent intraoral infections; * Allergies or adverse reactions to restorative materials; * Completely edentulous arches; * Limited mouth opening; * Inadequate oral hygiene or lack of motivation for self-care; * Uncontrolled systemic diseases; * Untreated or chronic oral cavity diseases; * Fully edentulous arches.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Accuracy and precision of noninvasive measurement are added.
Genom att skicka in godkänner du våra Användarvillkor
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
Contacts and locations
Locations
-
Clinica Odontoiatrica Giorgio Vogel (Università degli studi di Milano)
Milan, Italy, Italy