Lauren Bernard1, Marjolein Vercruyssen2, Joke Duyck3, Reinhilde Jacobs4, Wim Teughels5, Marc Quirynen6. 1. Assistant, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: info@parobernard.be. 2. Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Professor and Chief, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Prosthetic Dentistry), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Professor and Chief, OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Professor, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Professor and Chief, Department of Oral Health Sciences, KU Leuven & Dentistry (Periodontology), University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-based prosthetic solutions can be time consuming. If implants can be placed successfully with a guide, surgery time can be reduced. PURPOSE: 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. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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). RESULTS: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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
RCT Entities:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-based prosthetic solutions can be time consuming. If implants can be placed successfully with a guide, surgery time can be reduced. PURPOSE: 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. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Eugenio Velasco-Ortega; Alvaro Jiménez-Guerra; Ivan Ortiz-Garcia; Jesús Moreno-Muñoz; Enrique Núñez-Márquez; Daniel Cabanillas-Balsera; José López-López; Loreto Monsalve-Guil Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390