» Articles » PMID: 34428195

Whole-Process Digitalization-Assisted Immediate Implant Placement and Immediate Restoration in the Aesthetic Zone: A Prospective Study

Overview
Journal Med Sci Monit
Date 2021 Aug 24
PMID 34428195
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

BACKGROUND This study explored the clinical effects of whole-process digitalization (WD)-assisted immediate implant placement (IIP) and immediate restoration (IR) in the aesthetic zone and clarified the clinical procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients who received maxillary aesthetic region IIP and IR treatment were randomly distributed into WD-assisted and conventional groups. Postoperative assessment included implant accuracy, marginal bone loss, aesthetic evaluation, and patient satisfaction evaluation. The aesthetic evaluation included visual analog score (VAS), pink aesthetic score (PES), and white aesthetic score (WES). Numerical data, measurement data, and grade data were analyzed by χ² test, t test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS The WD-assisted group exhibited decreased implant accuracy, including coronal deviation, apical deviation, angular deviation, and depth deviation, compared with the conventional group (P<0.05). The marginal bone loss in both the mesiodistal direction and the buccolingual direction were significantly lower in the WD-assisted group than in the conventional group (P<0.05). The VAS, PES, and WES were all significantly higher in the WD-assisted group than in the conventional group at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery (P<0.05). Patients in the WD-assisted group also reported a higher satisfaction level than those in the conventional group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS WD-assisted IIP and IR treatment in the aesthetic zone increased implant accuracy, decreased marginal bone loss, improved aesthetic effect, and increased patient satisfaction compared with conventional treatment. Therefore, WD-assisted IIP and IR treatment constitutes a promising approach in clinical oral implantology.

Citing Articles

Comparison of the accuracy of immediate implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant system in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: a prospective study.

Feng Y, Su Z, Mo A, Yang X Int J Implant Dent. 2022; 8(1):65.

PMID: 36512162 PMC: 9747989. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-022-00464-w.

References
1.
Luo D, Li T, Wang H, Chen Y . Three-Dimensional Printing of Personalized Nasal Stents for Patients With Cleft Lip. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018; 56(4):521-524. DOI: 10.1177/1055665618782804. View

2.
Nyberg E, Farris A, Hung B, Dias M, Garcia J, Dorafshar A . 3D-Printing Technologies for Craniofacial Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, and Regeneration. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016; 45(1):45-57. PMC: 5154778. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-016-1668-5. View

3.
Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M . Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26 Suppl 11:69-76. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12638. View

4.
Colombo M, Poggio C, Lasagna A, Chiesa M, Scribante A . Vickers Micro-Hardness of New Restorative CAD/CAM Dental Materials: Evaluation and Comparison after Exposure to Acidic Drink. Materials (Basel). 2019; 12(8). PMC: 6515223. DOI: 10.3390/ma12081246. View

5.
Geng W, Liu C, Su Y, Li J, Zhou Y . Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(6):8442-9. PMC: 4538014. View