Dechawat Kaewsiri1, Soontra Panmekiate2, Keskanya Subbalekha1, Nikos Mattheos1,3, Atiphan Pimkhaokham1. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this RCT was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in single tooth space. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients in need of a single implant were randomly assigned to two CAIS groups (Static n = 30, Dynamic n = 30) and implants were placed by one surgeon. Preoperative CBCT was transferred to implant planning software to plan the optimal implant position. Implants were placed using either stereolithographic guide template (Static CAIS) or implant navigation system (Dynamic CAIS). Postoperative CBCT was imported to implant planning software, and deviation analysis with the planned position was performed. Primary outcomes were the deviation measurements at implant platform, apex, and angle of placement. Secondary outcome was the distribution of the implant deviation into each 3D direction. RESULTS: The mean deviation at implant platform and implant apex in the static CAIS group was 0.97 ± 0.44 mm and 1.28 ± 0.46 mm, while that in the dynamic CAIS group was 1.05 ± 0.44 mm and 1.29 ± 0.50 mm, respectively. The angular deviation in static and dynamic CAIS group was 2.84 ± 1.71 degrees and 3.06 ± 1.37 degrees. None of the above differences between the two groups reached statistical significance. The deviation of implants toward the mesial direction in dynamic CAIS group was significantly higher than that of the static CAIS (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement accuracy in single tooth space using dynamic CAIS appear to be the same to that of static CAIS. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20180826001).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this RCT was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in single tooth space. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients in need of a single implant were randomly assigned to two CAIS groups (Static n = 30, Dynamic n = 30) and implants were placed by one surgeon. Preoperative CBCT was transferred to implant planning software to plan the optimal implant position. Implants were placed using either stereolithographic guide template (Static CAIS) or implant navigation system (Dynamic CAIS). Postoperative CBCT was imported to implant planning software, and deviation analysis with the planned position was performed. Primary outcomes were the deviation measurements at implant platform, apex, and angle of placement. Secondary outcome was the distribution of the implant deviation into each 3D direction. RESULTS: The mean deviation at implant platform and implant apex in the static CAIS group was 0.97 ± 0.44 mm and 1.28 ± 0.46 mm, while that in the dynamic CAIS group was 1.05 ± 0.44 mm and 1.29 ± 0.50 mm, respectively. The angular deviation in static and dynamic CAIS group was 2.84 ± 1.71 degrees and 3.06 ± 1.37 degrees. None of the above differences between the two groups reached statistical significance. The deviation of implants toward the mesial direction in dynamic CAIS group was significantly higher than that of the static CAIS (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement accuracy in single tooth space using dynamic CAIS appear to be the same to that of static CAIS. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20180826001).
Authors: Alessandro Pozzi; Lorenzo Arcuri; Paolo Carosi; Alessandra Nardi; Joseph Kan Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 5.021
Authors: Cornelia Edelmann; Martin Wetzel; Anne Knipper; Ralph G Luthardt; Sigmar Schnutenhaus Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Francesco Grecchi; Luigi V Stefanelli; Fabrizio Grivetto; Emma Grecchi; Rami Siev; Ziv Mazor; Massimo Del Fabbro; Nicola Pranno; Alessio Franchina; Vittorio Di Lucia; Francesca De Angelis; Funda Goker Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.390