Clinical and tomographic comparison of dental implants placed by guided virtual surgery versus conventional technique: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Autor: Magrin GL; Department of Dentistry, Center of Education and Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina / UFSC, Florianopolis, Brazil.; Department of Oral Biology, Dental School of the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria., Rafael SNF; Faculty of Dentistry, São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, Brazil., Passoni BB; Department of Dentistry, Center of Education and Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina / UFSC, Florianopolis, Brazil., Magini RS; Department of Dentistry, Center of Education and Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina / UFSC, Florianopolis, Brazil., Benfatti CAM; Department of Dentistry, Center of Education and Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina / UFSC, Florianopolis, Brazil., Gruber R; Department of Oral Biology, Dental School of the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria., Peruzzo DC; Faculty of Dentistry, São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of clinical periodontology [J Clin Periodontol] 2020 Jan; Vol. 47 (1), pp. 120-128. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Nov 14.
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13211
Abstrakt: Aim: Our objective was to compare guided virtual surgery to conventional surgery in terms of angular deviation of single dental implants placed in the posterior mandible.
Materials and Methods: Patients with bilateral homologous single teeth missing in the posterior mandible were eligible for this split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed for virtual planning of implant position and manufacturing of the stereolithographic guides. One week after the surgery, a second CBCT scan was superimposed to the initial planning. Primary endpoint was the angular deviation between virtual and clinical implant position. Secondary endpoints were linear deviations and patient-reported outcomes collected with a questionnaire.
Results: Data from 12 patients were available for analysis. Angular deviation was significantly lower using stereolithographic guides as compared to conventional guides (2.2 ± 1.1° vs. 3.5 ± 1.6°, p = .042). Linear deviations were similar for both techniques in the coronal (2.34 ± 1.01 vs. 1.93 ± 0.95 mm) and apical (2.53 ± 1.11 vs. 2.19 ± 1.00 mm) dimensions (p ˃ .05). The selection of the surgical technique had no significant impact on the patient-reported outcomes.
Conclusion: Our data suggest that the angular discrepancy between the virtual and the clinical implant position is slightly lower when using stereolithographic guides as compared to conventional guides.
(© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: