The implant position accuracy between using only surgical drill guide and surgical drill guide with implant guide in fully digital workflow: a randomized clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chalermchai Ngamprasertkit ◽  
Weerapan Aunmeungthong ◽  
Pathawee Khongkhunthian
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Digital Workflow ◽  
Implant Position ◽  
Position Accuracy ◽  
Drill Guide

scholarly journals Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1102
Author(s):  
Corina Marilena Cristache ◽  
Mihai Burlibasa ◽  
Ioana Tudor ◽  
Eugenia Eftimie Totu ◽  
Fabrizio Di Francesco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Entry Point ◽  
Angular Deviation ◽  
Digital Workflow ◽  
Position Information ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Edentulous Patients

(1) Background: Prosthetically-driven implant positioning is a prerequisite for long-term successful treatment. Transferring the planned implant position information to the clinical setting could be done using either static or dynamic guided techniques. The 3D model of the bone and surrounding structures is obtained via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the patient’s oral condition can be acquired conventionally and then digitalized using a desktop scanner, partially digital workflow (PDW) or digitally with the aid of an intraoral scanner (FDW). The aim of the present randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the accuracy of flapless dental implants insertion in partially edentulous patients with a static surgical template obtained through PDW and FDW. Patient outcome and time spent from data collection to template manufacturing were also compared. (2) Methods: 66 partially edentulous sites (at 49 patients) were randomly assigned to a PDW or FDW for guided implant insertion. Planned and placed implants position were compared by assessing four deviation parameters: 3D error at the entry point, 3D error at the apex, angular deviation, and vertical deviation at entry point. (3) Results: A total of 111 implants were inserted. No implant loss during osseointegration or mechanical and technical complications occurred during the first-year post-implants loading. The mean error at the entry point was 0.44 mm (FDW) and 0.85 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; at implant apex, 1.03 (FDW) and 1.48 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; the mean angular deviation, 2.12° (FDW) and 2.48° (PDW), p = 0.03 and the mean depth deviation, 0.45 mm (FDW) and 0.68 mm (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; (4) Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant differences between the groups, and in the limits of the present study, full digital workflow as well as partially digital workflow are predictable methods for accurate prosthetically driven guided implants insertion.

scholarly journals Comparative Study between an Immediate Loading Protocol Using the Digital Workflow and a Conventional Protocol for Dental Implant Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piyanut Rattanapanich ◽  
Weerapan Aunmeungtong ◽  
Pisaisit Chaijareenont ◽  
Pathawee Khongkhunthian
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Digital Workflow ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Marginal Bone Level ◽  
Implant Treatment

Background: The purposes of this randomized clinical trial study was to compare the immediate loading of dental implants while employing digital workflow and conventional implants in terms of the success rate, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction. Methods: Fifty patients who had edentulous area on the mandibular premolar or molar area were included in the study. Twenty-five patients were assigned to immediate loading implant treatment using the digital technique and 25 patients were assigned to conventional loading implant treatment. In the first group, the patients were received digital impression (Cerec Omnicam, Dentsply Sirona®, York, PA, USA), designed, producing zirconia crown, and inserted on the same surgery day. The second group, after a healing period of three months, was received analog impression following conventional impression for the zirconia crown. Clinical outcome and radiographic bone level were evaluated after three, six, and 12 months. Patient satisfaction was measured at 12 months after inserting the implant. Results: There was no implants and protheses failure in both groups. The mean resonance frequency analysis values at the day of surgery were 78.26 ± 4.09 in immediate loading using the digital group (ILD) and 73.74 ± 5.14 in the conventional loading group (CL), respectively. Insertion torque values at the day of surgery were 36.60 ± 12.64 in ILD and 38.8 ± 12.19 CL, respectively. The marginal bone level in CL at three, six, and 12 months were 0.14 ± 0.28 mm, 0.18 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.17 ± 0.29 mm, respectively, while in ILD at three, six, and 12 months were 0.18 ± 0.33 mm and 0.16 ± 0.27 mm and 0.15 ± 0.31, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Only one question in patient satisfaction’s questionnaire was “Now, can your dental implant and crown be used well?” had been significantly different in favor to the conventional group. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, it may be concluded that, after one-year follow up, there were no statistically significant differences between the immediate loading of dental implants employed from the digital workflow and conventional implant treatment technique in the success rate and marginal bone level. In patient satisfaction, there was only statistic significant difference in question related to implant prosthetic function in favor of the CL group, whereas the question concerning speaking, cleansing, price, and expectation displayed no difference.

Does Apico-Coronal Implant Position Influence Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss? A 36-Month Follow-Up Randomized Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilario Pellicer-Chover ◽  
Maria Peñarrocha-Diago ◽  
Amparo Aloy-Prosper ◽  
Luigi Canullo ◽  
Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Position

Randomized clinical trial of LigasureTM versus open haemorrhoidectomy

2002 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. F Palazzo ◽  
D. L Francis ◽  
M. A Clifton
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial

Ciprofloxacin is more effective in treating acute pouchitis than metronidazole: A randomized clinical trial

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A453-A453 ◽  
Author(s):  
B SHEN ◽  
J ACHKAR ◽  
B LASHNER ◽  
A ORMSBY ◽  
F REMZI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document