» Articles » PMID: 29608793

A Randomized Controlled Study on the Accuracy of Free-handed, Pilot-drill Guided and Fully Guided Implant Surgery in Partially Edentulous Patients

Overview
Date 2018 Apr 3
PMID 29608793
Citations 42
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: To compare the accuracy of free-handed (FH), pilot-drill guided (PG) and fully guided (FG) implant surgery.

Materials And Methods: Partially edentulous patients in need of ≥2 implants in the posterior maxilla were randomly allocated to one of the following treatment groups: FH, PG and FG. Ideal implant positions were determined in designated software following the fusion of bony information (CBCT data in DICOM format) to the prosthetic wax-up (optical scan data in STL format). The position of every implant as surgically realized was compared to its "ideal position". The apical global deviation (AGD) was the primary outcome of the study. Secondary outcome variables were angular deviation (AD), coronal global deviation (CGD), coronal lateral deviation (CLD), coronal vertical deviation (CVD), apical lateral deviation (ALD) and apical vertical deviation (AVD).

Results: Eleven patients (mean age 57; three males; eight females; altogether 26 implants) were treated by FH surgery, 11 (mean age 53; four males; seven females; altogether 24 implants) by PG surgery and 10 (mean age 60; four males; six females; altogether 21 implants) by FG surgery. FG surgery was most accurate (mean AGD: 0.97 mm; maximum AGD: 1.98 mm) followed by PG surgery (mean AGD: 1.43 mm; maximum AGD: 2.72 mm). FH surgery resulted in huge deviation from the ideal position (mean AGD: 2.11 mm; maximum AGD: 4.84 mm). The results on most secondary outcome variables followed the same order. Although screw-retained restorations were planned for all implants, five of 26 in the FH group and one of 24 in the PG group had to be restored by means of a cement-retained restoration.

Conclusion: When perfect implant positioning is required, FG surgery should be considered the gold standard approach.

Citing Articles

Comparative evaluation of accuracy of implants placed with thermoplastic and three-dimensional-printed surgical guides: A randomized controlled trial.

Husain F, Grover V, Bhaskar N, Jain A J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2024; 28(2):244-251.

PMID: 39411727 PMC: 11472977. DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_256_23.


Accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients: a prospective observational study.

Chrabieh E, Hanna C, Mrad S, Rameh S, Bassil J, Zaarour J Int J Implant Dent. 2024; 10(1):36.

PMID: 39012381 PMC: 11252094. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-024-00552-z.


Rehabilitation of Edentulous Arch Using All-on-Four Treatment Protocol: A Case Report.

Fernandes G, Aras M, Chitre V, Coutinho I, Mascarenhas K Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e58919.

PMID: 38800271 PMC: 11121617. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58919.


Effects of autoclaving and disinfection on 3D surgical guides using LCD technology for dental implant.

Labakoum B, Farhan A, Taleb L, Mouhsen A, Lyazidi A 3D Print Med. 2024; 10(1):14.

PMID: 38656429 PMC: 11040828. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-024-00214-1.


Accuracy of implant placement with computer-aided static, dynamic, and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Khaohoen A, Powcharoen W, Sornsuwan T, Chaijareenont P, Rungsiyakull C, Rungsiyakull P BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):359.

PMID: 38509530 PMC: 10956322. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04033-y.