Implant Placement
Conditions
Keywords
Fully-guided surgical stent, semi-guided surgical stent, accuracy analysis
Brief summary
Thirty-six completely edentulous healthy patients received four mandibular implants and were randomly divided into the following groups: (A) The implants were installed by fully guided stereolithographic stent (n = 18), and (B) The implants were installed by semi-guided stereolithographic stent. (n = 18). The accuracy analysis was performed by one experienced process engineer (DB). Cone beam computed tomography was performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative linear and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants.
Detailed description
Objectives: Current study aimed to assess the accuracy of fully- guided implant placement in completely lower edentulous patients compared to the semi-guided protocol. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six completely edentulous healthy patients received four mandibular implants and were randomly divided into the following groups: (A) The implants were installed by fully guided stereolithographic stent (n = 18), and (B) The implants were installed by semi-guided stereolithographic stent. (n = 18). The accuracy analysis was performed by one experienced process engineer (DB). Cone beam computed tomography was performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative linear and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants. Measurements and analysis of results were performed by means of a software tool used during virtual planning (P3Dental; Protótipos).
Interventions
DEVICEfully guided stent
All surgical procedures with drills were done through the stent., the implant was picked up from the implant holder and then installed, still with the surgical guide in situ, by using the ratchet and ratchet connector at a motor speed of 20 rpm, followed by cover screw placement without the need for sutures.
DEVICEsemiguided stent
The first osteotomy was performed with the surgical guide in situ using a 1.95 mm pilot-drill. Successive color coded implant drills were used to prepare implant osteotomies. When using each twist drill, a removable sleeve having a diameter to coincide with the drill and inserted into the sleeve of the surgical guide. The stereo lithographic guide template was removed and the receptor sites were irrigated with saline solution then the final drill of the implant system 3.5 mm diameter was used to finalize the osteotomy. The implant was gripped with the placement aid, released from the implant holder by 1/4 turn and manually inserted into the prepared implant site using a finger placement tool or hand ratchet. A torque of 45 N cm should not be exceeded during insertion procedure and cover screws were screwed over it.
Sponsors
Mansoura University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)
Masking description
Dental professionals who were not informed about the group assignments carried out the assignment and randomization of patients to the treatment groups.
Intervention model description
randomized controlled clinical trial
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
58 Years to 68 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* All patient wearing maxillary conventional denture. * All patients had temporary mandibular overdenture supported by vertically inserted 4-implant at least six months ago. * They were healthy, free from any systemic diseases relating to bone resorption such as uncontrolled diabetics or osteoporosis. This was achieved through medical history and clinical examination by physician. * All patients are of angel's class I maxillo-mandibular relationships.
Exclusion criteria
* Patients had head and neck radiotherapy, patients with bleeding disorders or hepatic patients. * Patients with metabolic disorders as diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis and hepatic disorders that might affect osseointegration. * Long term immunosuppress and corticosteroid drug therapy. * Patient with abnormal habits as clenching and bruxism. * Smoking patient. * Patient with problems in TMJ
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Radio graphic evaluation (Angular deviation) | one year | For both groups, postoperative CBCT scan was performed after implant placement. The same parameters of preoperative CBCT were followed according to the patient's position, image acquisition, and use of the same apparatus. This scan was performed with the same dental prosthesis as that used for the initial preoperative CBCT scanning, equipped with the gutta percha references, for superimposition of the images. The previously fabricated occlusal registration was used to align the prosthesis. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative horizontal (Mesiodistal and buccolingual), vertical and angular virtual measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Radio graphic evaluation (linear deviation) | one year | For both groups, postoperative CBCT scan was performed after implant placement. The same parameters of preoperative CBCT were followed according to the patient's position, image acquisition, and use of the same apparatus. This scan was performed with the same dental prosthesis as that used for the initial preoperative CBCT scanning, equipped with the gutta percha references, for superimposition of the images. The previously fabricated occlusal registration was used to align the prosthesis. Both CBCT scans were superimposed, and the software compared preoperative horizontal (Mesiodistal and buccolingual) measurements of planned implants with real measurements of the placed implants. |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed