September 2014
·
4,201 Reads
·
143 Citations
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial Key words computer-guided surgery, dental implants, flapless surgery, immediate loading Purpose: To compare planning and patient rehabilitation using a 3D dental planning software and dedicated surgical guides with conventional rehabilitation of partially or fully edentulous patients using flapless or mini-flap procedures and immediate loading. Materials and methods: Fifty-one fully or partially edentulous patients requiring at least 2 implants to be restored with a single prosthesis, having at least 7 mm of bone height and 4 mm in bone width, had their implant rehabilitation planned on three-dimensional (3D) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans using a dedicated software. Afterwards they were randomised accord-ing to a parallel group study design into two arms: computer-guided implant placement aided with templates (computer-guided group) versus conventional implant placement without templates (con-ventional group) in three different centres. Implants were to be placed flapless and loaded immedi-ately; if inserted with a torque over 35 Ncm with reinforced provisional prostheses, then replaced, after 4 months, by definitive prostheses. Outcome measures, assessed by masked assessors were: prosthesis and implant failures, complications, peri-implant bone level changes, number of treat-ment sessions, duration of treatment, post-surgical pain and swelling, consumption of pain killers, treatment time, time required to solve complications, additional treatment cost, patient satisfaction. Patients were followed up to 1 year after loading. Results: Twenty-six patients were randomised to the conventional treatment and 25 to computer-guided rehabilitation. No patient dropped out. One provisional prosthesis failed, since one of the two supporting implants failed 11 days after implantation in the conventional group (P = 1.0). Four patients of the conventionally loaded groups experienced one complication each, versus five patients (6 complications) in the computer-guided group (P = 0.726). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for any of the tested outcomes with the exception of more postoperative surgical pain (P = 0.002) and swelling (P = 0.024) at conventionally treated patients. Conclusions: When treatment planning was made on 3D CBTC scan using a dedicated software, no statistically significant differences were observed between computer-guided and a free-hand rehabili-tations, with the exception of more postoperative pain and swelling at sites treated freehand because more frequently flaps were elevated. Conflict of interest statement: This trial was completely self-funded and there are no conflicts of interests.