+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing guided with nonguided implant placement: A 3-year follow-up of implant-centered outcomes

A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing guided with nonguided implant placement: A 3-year follow-up of implant-centered outcomes

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2019

Implant-based prosthetic solutions can be time consuming. If implants can be placed successfully with a guide, surgery time can be reduced. The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to assess implant outcomes, both clinical and radiological, comparing guided with nonguided implant placement after 3 years of follow-up. A total of 314 implants were placed in 72 jaws (60 participants). The jaws were randomly assigned to 1 of the 6 treatment groups: Materialise Universal/mucosa (Mat Mu), Materialise Universal/bone (Mat Bo), Facilitate/mucosa (Fac Mu), Facilitate/bone (Fac Bo), freehand navigation (Freehand), and a pilot-drill template (Templ). Radiographic and clinical parameters (bone loss, pocket probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque scores) were recorded at the time of implant placement, prosthesis installment (baseline), and 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year follow-up. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed model, and correction for simultaneous hypothesis was made according to Sidak (α=.05). Three participants left the study before the 3-year follow-up; hence, 302 implants in 69 jaws were included in this study. None of the implants failed. The mean marginal bone loss after the third year of loading was 0.7 ±1.3 mm for the guided surgery group and 0.5 ±0.6 mm for the control group. No significant intergroup or follow-up period differences were observed (P>.05). In the guided surgery groups, the mean number of surfaces with bleeding on probing and plaque at 3-year follow-up was 1.7 ±1.5 and 1.7 ±1.7, respectively; for the control groups, this was 1.6 ±1.4 and 1.6 ±1.6, respectively. The mean pocket probing depth was 3.0 ±1.3 mm for the guided group and 2.6 ±1.0 mm for the control group. No significant differences were found (P>.1). Within the limitation of this study, no statistically significant differences could be found between the guided group and the control group at the 3-year follow-up.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 066470812

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 30732920

DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.004

Related references

Implant- and patient-centred outcomes of guided surgery, a 1-year follow-up: An RCT comparing guided surgery with conventional implant placement. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 41(12): 1154-1160, 2015

Small randomized clinical trial shows lack of difference in outcomes when comparing surgically guided and conventional protocol implant placement. Journal of the American Dental Association 148(6): E75, 2018

Clinical and radiographic performance of delayed-immediate single-tooth implant placement associated with peri-implant bone defects. A 2-year prospective, controlled, randomized follow-up report. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 32(5): 480-487, 2005

Clinical and radiologic outcomes after submerged and transmucosal implant placement with two-piece implants in the anterior maxilla and mandible: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 17(2): 234-246, 2016

Randomized controlled trial comparing immediate loading with conventional loading using cone-anchored implant-supported screw-retained removable prostheses: A 2-year follow-up clinical trial. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2018, 2018

Early, delayed, or late single implant placement: 10-year results from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 25(12): 1359-1365, 2016

Connective tissue grafts for thickening peri-implant tissues at implant placement. One-year results from an explanatory split-mouth randomised controlled clinical trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology 3(1): 27-35, 2010

Minimally invasive flapless vs. flapped approach for single implant placement: a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 28(6): 757-764, 2016

Immediate implant placement with transmucosal healing in areas of aesthetic priority. A multicentre randomized-controlled clinical trial I. Surgical outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research 18(2): 188-196, 2007

A randomized clinical trial comparing two mandibular implant overdenture designs: 3-year prosthetic outcomes using a six-field protocol. International Journal of Prosthodontics 16(3): 255-260, 2003

Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems. International Journal of Prosthodontics 23(6): 555-561, 2011

Immediate implant placement combined with maxillary sinus floor elevation utilizing the transalveolar approach and nonsubmerged healing for failing teeth in the maxillary molar area: A randomized controlled trial clinical study with one-year follow-up. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2019, 2019

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional and Computer-Assisted Implant Planning and Placement in Partially Edentulous Patients. Part 3: Time and Cost Analyses. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 39(3): E71-E82, 2019

Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 27(12): E185-E189, 2015

Maxillary Three-Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 10-Year Surgical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 18(3): 527-544, 2017