RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) has been introduced as a tool to aid in reaching a more accurate implant position. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare all the available CAIS techniques and obtain collective evidence on the method that offers the highest accuracy compared to freehand implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Database search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library in addition to extensive search in the gray literature and related systematic reviews, aiming to find clinical studies that compared any CAIS technique with another, or with freehand implant placement. The outcomes evaluated were angle, platform, and apex deviation. The search process ended on March 18, 2024. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included. All CAIS techniques (static with partial or full guidance, dynamic with partial or full guidance, the combination of static and dynamic CAIS) showed significantly less deviation than freehand implant placement, except for the static CAIS with guidance for the pilot drill only. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS ranked best among all other methods. Based on the GRADE system, the certainty of evidence in the outcomes of the meta-analysis was judged as low or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates that computer-assisted implant surgery provides significantly higher accuracy in implant placement, with the combination of static and dynamic CAIS being the most precise. Nevertheless, future studies are needed, considering the different types, locations, and extents of edentulism in the analyzed investigations, as well as the necessity of obtaining stronger evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERIO number: CRD42023482030.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The use of extracted teeth has been introduced as an option for bone grafting. However, the current method requires special machines and solutions, posing significant time and cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of autogenous raw tooth particles (RTP), a grafting material made from a ground tooth using basic equipment, for alveolar ridge preservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients (12 study/11 control), having 14 and 13 sites were included for the study and control groups (commercially available xenograft), respectively. Radiographic measurements were taken at the baseline and the 4-month follow-up appointment. Furthermore, a questionnaire survey concerning the general preference of the type of graft to receive (if needed), before and after knowing the price, was distributed at the completion of the procedure for patients to answer. RESULTS: Alveolar ridge width change was -1.03 ± 0.64 and -0.84 ± 0.35 for the study and the control groups, respectively. Regarding the height, the study group showed a buccal and lingual change of -0.66 ± 0.48 and -0.78 ± 0.81, respectively, while this was -0.78 ± 0.56 and -0.9 ± 0.41 for the xenograft group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Patients preferred the raw tooth particles over other grafting materials (p = .01). CONCLUSION: No core biopsies were taken to evaluate bone formation, which should be done in future studies. Within its limitations, the current study demonstrated that RTP graft could be an alternative graft for bone augmentation, offering a new cost-effective option for clinicians when available.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The Allogenic Demineralized Dentin Matrix (Allo-DDM) has been introduced as a new grafting material, and several investigations were conducted, showing its efficacy in bone augmentation. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on the Allo-DDM, revealing its clinical performance when used for implant placement procedures. METHODS: This study is registered in the PROSPERO database (number: CRD42021264885, date: 30/7/2021). Four databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched, selecting human studies where the Allo-DDM was applied to augment implant-recipient sites. RESULTS: Six articles were included. The total number of implants placed in Allo-DDM-grafted sites was 149. Mean implant stability quotient values (ISQ) were 60.4 and 68.67 for the primary and secondary ISQ, respectively (data from one study). Buccal marginal bone loss around implants was approximately 1.46 mm after 24 months of prosthetic loading (data from one study). Two studies documented a total of 6 cases of dehiscence of the grated area, however, not affecting early implant success. Histological findings from all studies showed new bone formation around the graft particles. CONCLUSION: A low number of publications are available, presenting only preliminary results, thus the long-term success/survival of implants still needs to be further explored. Moreover, the possibility of bony dehiscence with the use of this material should be investigated. Within these limitations, the Allo-DDM could be a possible alternative to other grafting materials used for bone augmentation and implant placement. Nevertheless, considering this limited evidence, future studies are necessary to confirm this conclusion.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) can facilitate accuracy of single implant placement, but little is known with regards to parallelism between multiple implants. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of position and parallelism of two implants, using static and dynamic CAIS systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients received two implants (60 implants) randomly allocated to two different CAIS systems. Optimal implant position and absolute parallelism was planned based on preoperative cone beam CT (CBCT). Patients received implants with a surgical guide (static CAIS, n = 30) or real-time navigation (dynamic CAIS, n = 30). Implant three-dimensional deviation and parallelism was calculated after surgery. RESULTS: The mean 3D deviation in the static and dynamic CAIS group at implant platform were 1.04 ± 0.67 vs 1.24 ± 0.39 mm, at apex were 1.54 ± 0.79 vs 1.58 ± 0.56 mm and angulation were 4.08° ± 1.69° vs 3.78° ± 1.84°, respectively. The angle deviations between two placed implants (parallelism) in static and dynamic CAIS groups were 4.32° ± 2.44° and 3.55° ± 2.29°, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in all parameters between groups. CONCLUSION: Static and dynamic CAIS provides similar accuracy of the 3D implant position and parallelism between two implants.