An observational study in Healthy, sponsored by University Ghent. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in Belgium. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-15.
Sponsored by University Ghent · Observational
Periapical radiographs of dental implants, acquired as part of two ongoing research projects, will be retrospectively analyzed using a newly developed image quality scoring form. Following an initial classification (Excellent - Acceptable - Rejected), a detailed assessment of the various image quality criteria and any deviations from these criteria will be performed. In addition, the frequency with which radiographs had to be retaken to obtain a diagnostically acceptable image will be evaluated. The influence of anatomical factors (e.g., implant location in the mouth, maxilla or mandible, etc.) and the use of individualized radiographic holders will also be assessed.
Through this retrospective analysis of an existing dataset of implant radiographs, the study aims to identify the factors that have influenced image quality, the ability to accurately assess the surrounding bone level, and the need for repeat radiographic exposures. The findings may contribute to the development of guidelines to improve the quality of periapical radiographs and potentially reduce radiation exposure for patients.
University Ghent is the lead sponsor of 349 studies on the registry; 86 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Fourty-nine fully edentulous patients, either in the upper- and/or lower jaw being treated with a bar-retained overdenture and werd seen at the yearly evaluation after 6 to 8 years of follow-up.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Patients which were treated with dental implants for a bar-retained overdenture in the upper - or lower jaw, as part of two running investigations.
Fully edentulous for minimally 4 months; Adequate bone volume to receive two or 4 implants
Exclusion Criteria:
\<21 years old; Smoking
Patients were treated with either 4 implants in the upper jaw or 2 implants in lower jaw as part of 2 running research projects. Periapical radiographs taken during these investigations will be analysed retrospectively .
Rejection classification
The percentage of periapical radiographs classified as qualitatively excellent, acceptable or unacceptable.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Repeat rate
Number of radiographs which were actually repeated as result of unacceptable quality.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Interexaminer reproducibility of the reject analysis.
The degree of agreement between different examiners when classifying radiographs as rejected, acceptable or excellent, and when identifying the reasons for rejection according to the quality assessment criteria.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Intra-examiner reproducibility
The degree of agreement within the different examiners when classifying radiographs as rejected, acceptable or excellent, and when identifying the reasons for rejection according to the quality assessment criteria.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Qualitative error classification
Frequency analysis of errors resulting in the rejection of the radiographs.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.
Plan to share: No — Sharing individual participant data will not be relevant for analysing the quality of the publication.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.