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

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 47; no. 1; pp. 120 - 128
• Main Authors: Magrin, Gabriel L., Rafael, Stela N. F., Passoni, Bernardo B., Magini, Ricardo S., Benfatti, Cesar A. M., Gruber, Reinhard, Peruzzo, Daiane C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2020
• Subjects: Clinical trials; Computed tomography; computer‐assisted surgery; cone beam computed tomography; Dental implants; Dental prosthetics; Dentistry; Mandible; oral surgery; Patients; single‐tooth dental implant; Surgery; Teeth; Transplants & implants; single-tooth dental implant; oral surgery; computer-assisted surgery; dental implants; cone beam computed tomography
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13211
• ISSN: 0303-6979

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.