Improved positional accuracy of dental implant placement using a haptic and machine-vision-controlled collaborative surgery robot: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To compare the implant accuracy, safety and morbidity between robot-assisted and freehand dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects requiring single-site dental implant placement were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to freehand implant placement and robot-assisted implant placement. Differences in positional accuracy of the implant, surgical morbidity and complications were assessed. The significance of intergroup differences was tested with an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol (PP) analysis (excluding one patient due to calibration error). RESULTS: Twenty patients (with a median age of 37, 13 female) were included. One subject assigned to the robotic arm was excluded from the PP analysis because of a large calibration error due to the dislodgement of the index. For robot-assisted and freehand implant placement, with the PP analysis, the median (25th-75th percentile) platform global deviation, apex global deviation and angular deviation were 1.23 (0.9-1.4) mm/1.9 (1.2-2.3) mm (p = .03, the Mann-Whitney U-test), 1.40 (1.1-1.6) mm/2.1 (1.7-3.9) mm (p < .01) and 3.0 (0.9-6.0)°/6.7 (2.2-13.9)° (p = .08), respectively. Both methods showed limited damage to the alveolar ridge and had similar peri- and post-operative morbidity and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted implant placement enabled greater positional accuracy of the implant compared to freehand placement in this pilot trial. The robotic system should be further developed to simplify surgical procedures and improve accuracy and be validated in properly sized trials assessing the full spectrum of relevant outcomes.

Accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched on October 25, 2023. Model studies or clinical studies reporting the accuracy of robotic surgery for dental implant placement among patients with missing or hopeless teeth were included. Risks of bias in clinical studies were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Data from 8 clinical studies reporting on 109 patients and 242 implants and 13 preclinical studies were included. Positional accuracy was measured by comparing the implant plan in presurgery CBCT and the actual implant position in postsurgery CBCT. For clinical studies, the pooled (95% confidence interval) platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.68 (0.57, 0.79) mm, 0.67 (0.58, 0.75) mm, and 1.69 (1.25, 2.12)°, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the accuracy of implants placed in partially or fully edentulous patients. For model studies, the pooled platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.72 (0.58, 0.86) mm, 0.90 (0.74, 1.06) mm, and 1.46 (1.22, 1.70)°, respectively. No adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the present systematic review, robotic surgery for dental implant placement showed suitable implant positional accuracy and had no reported obvious harm. Both robotic systems and clinical studies on robotic surgery for dental implant placement should be further developed.

Comparison of Different Intraoral Scanners With Prefabricated Aid on Accuracy and Framework Passive Fit of Digital Complete-Arch Implant Impression: An In Vitro Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital complete-arch implant impressions with prefabricated aids using three intraoral scanners (IOSs) and explore the correlation between virtual deviation measurement and physical framework misfit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four edentulous maxillary master models with four and six parallel and angular implants were fabricated and scanned by a laboratory scanner as reference scans. Ten scans of each master model were acquired using three IOSs (IOS-T, IOS-M, and IOS-A) with and without prefabricated aids. Trueness and precision of root mean square (RMS) errors were measured. Ten aluminum alloy frameworks were fabricated, and the misfit was measured with a micro-computed tomography scan with one screw tightened. RESULTS: Trueness and precision showed significant improvement when prefabricated aids were used for all three IOSs (p < 0.010). Median (interquartile range) RMS errors of trueness reduced from 67.5 (30.4) to 61.8 (30.3) µm, from 100.6 (35.4) to 45.9 (15.1) µm, and from 52.7 (33.2) to 41.1 (22.5) µm for scanner IOS-T, IOS-M, and IOS-A, respectively (p < 0.010). The precision of IOS-A and IOS-M was significantly better than IOS-T when using prefabricated aid (p < 0.001). RMS errors and the maximum marginal misfit of the framework were significantly correlated (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.845). CONCLUSIONS: With the prefabricated aids, the accuracy of IOSs enhanced significantly in digital complete-arch implant impressions. Three IOSs showed different levels of improvement in accuracy. Virtual RMS errors <62.2 µm could be the clinically acceptable threshold (150 µm) for framework passive fit.

Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs) are technique sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer alternatives to conventional impression making. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy and passive fit of IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and open tray impression (OI) for CIFDPs with different implant distributions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three definitive casts with 4 parallel implants (4-PARA), 4 inclined implants (4-INCL), and 6 parallel implants (6-PARA) were fabricated. Three recording techniques were tested: IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and OI. The best and the worst scans were selected to fabricate 18 milled aluminum alloy frameworks. The trueness and precision of distance deviation (∆td and ∆pd), angular deviation (∆tθand ∆pθ), root mean square errors (∆tRMS for ∆pRMS), and passive fit score of frameworks were recorded. Two-way ANOVA was applied. RESULTS: SPG showed the best trueness and precision (95%CI of ∆td/∆tθ/∆tRMS, 31 to 39 µm, 0.22 to 0.28 degrees, 20 to 23 µm; 95%CI of ∆pd/∆pθ/∆pRMS, 9 to 11 µm, 0.06 to 0.08 degrees, 8 to 10 µm), followed by OI (61 to 83 µm, 0.33 to 0.48 degrees, 28 to 48 µm; 66 to 81 µm, 0.29 to 0.38 degrees, 32 to 41 µm) and IOS (143 to 193 µm, 0.37 to 0.50 degrees, 81 to 96 µm; 89 to 111 µm, 0.27 to 0.31 degrees, 51 to 62 µm). Tilted implants were associated with increased distance deviation. Increased implant number was associated with improved recording precision. The passive fit of frameworks was negatively correlated with the RMS error, and the correlation coefficient was -0.65 (P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: SPG had the best accuracy. Implant distributions affected implant precision. The RMS error can be used to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks.

Buccal bone thickness and mid-facial soft tissue recession after various surgical approaches for immediate implant placement: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of controlled trials.

AIM: To evaluate the relative efficacy and confidence in the precision of the results of different surgical interventions for immediate implant placement in the anterior area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Randomized controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques in anterior jaws for type 1 implant placement were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness (BBT) reduction, and mid-facial soft tissue recession (MSTR). Risks of bias assessment, network meta-analysis (NMA), sensitivity analysis, and quality-of-evidence assessment were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies reporting on 948 subjects and 5 surgical interventions were included. Fourteen early failures were reported. Compared with open-flap surgery without tissue augmentation (F-N) and looking at BBT preservation, NMA showed that there was moderate confidence that flapless surgery with hard tissue augmentation (FL-HTA) was better than flapless surgery without tissue augmentation (FL-N) or open-flap surgery with hard tissue augmentation (F-HTA) (mean difference -0.8 mm, 95% confidence interval: -1.1 to -0.5 mm; -0.6 mm, -0.9 to -0.4 mm; and -0.5 mm, -0.7 to -0.3 mm, respectively). There was moderate confidence that flapless surgery with hard and soft tissue augmentation (FL-HTA&STA) could significantly prevent MSTR compared with FL-HTA (-0.5 mm, -0.7 to -0.3 mm) and FL-N (-0.6 mm, -1.2 to -0.04 mm). However, there was no significant additional benefit in BBT with the FL-HTA&STA approach compared to the FL-HTA approach (-0.30 mm, -0.81 to 0.21 mm). CONCLUSIONS: For immediate implant placement in the anterior areas, the FL-HTA approach better preserves BBT (moderate confidence); adding STA improves the stability of the mid-facial soft tissue level (moderate confidence) but at the expense of BBT (low confidence).

Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scan system (IOS) with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) compared with open tray implant impression (OI) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients needing CIFDP were enrolled in this study. OI, reference standard, IOS with prefabricated aids, and SPG were performed for each patient. Distance and angle deviations between all pairs of abutment analogs, root mean square (RMS) errors between the aligned test and reference model, and chairside time were measured. The effect of inter-abutment distance, jaw (maxilla or mandible), number of implants, and arch length on deviations was analyzed. The mixed effect model was applied to analyze deviations and RMS errors. RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive individuals (6 females and 9 males, 47-77 years old) with 22 arches (9 upper and 13 lower jaws) and 115 implants were included. There was no significant difference in distance deviation comparing SPG and IOS with OI (p > .05). IOS showed a significantly greater angle deviation and RMS errors than SPG (median 0.40° vs. 0.31°, 69 µm vs. 45 µm, p < .01). The inter-abutment distance was negatively correlated with the accuracy of SPG and IOS (p < .05). The chairside time for IOS, SPG, and OI was 10.49 ± 3.50, 14.71 ± 2.86, and 20.20 ± 3.01 min, respectively (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of SPG and IOS with prefabricated aids was comparable. IOS was the most efficient workflow.

Accuracy and safety of a haptic operated and machine vision controlled collaborative robot for dental implant placement: A translational study.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple generations of medical robots have revolutionized surgery. Their application to dental implants is still in its infancy. Co-operating robots (cobots) have great potential to improve the accuracy of implant placement, overcoming the limitations of static and dynamic navigation. This study reports the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant placement in a preclinical model and further applies the robotic system in a clinical case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In model analyses, the use of a lock-on structure at robot arm-handpiece was tested in resin arch models. In a clinical case series, patients with single missing teeth or edentulous arch were included. Robot-assisted implant placement was performed. Surgery time was recorded. Implant platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were measured. Factors influencing implant accuracy were analyzed. RESULTS: The in vitro results showed that with a lock-on structure, the mean (SD) of platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation were 0.37 (0.14) mm, 0.44 (0.17) mm, and 0.75 (0.29)°, respectively. Twenty-one patients (28 implants) were included in the clinical case series, 2 with arches and 19 with single missing teeth. The median surgery time for single missing teeth was 23 (IQ range 20-25) min. The surgery time for the two edentulous arches was 47 and 70 min. The mean (SD) of platform deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation was 0.54 (0.17) mm, 0.54 (0.11) mm, and 0.79 (0.22)° for single missing teeth and for 0.53 (0.17) mm, 0.58 (0.17) mm, and 0.77 (0.26)° for an edentulous arch. Implants placed in the mandible had significantly larger apex deviation than those in the maxilla. CONCLUSION: Cobot-assisted dental implant placement showed excellent positional accuracy and safety in both the in vitro study and the clinical case series. More technological development and clinical research are needed to support the introduction of robotic surgery in oral implantology. Trial registered in ChiCTR2100050885.

Surgical interventions for implant placement in the anterior maxilla: A systematic scoping review with evidence mapping.

OBJECTIVES: Simplification and standardization of interventions are critical challenges to improving performance in implant dentistry. This study aimed to systematically identify and schematically present the evidence base of the implant dentistry surgical interventions for the anterior maxilla as a basis for further development and standardization. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Primary clinical studies reporting surgical interventions in the anterior maxilla, with a sample size of at least ten patients, were included. Bibliometric information and study details were extracted. Descriptive analysis and a mind map approach were used to describe the documentation of different surgical interventions. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-two studies reporting on 9001 patients were included. Within the past two decades, the number of literatures on implant placement in the anterior maxilla has increased dramatically (7 studies before 2005, 151 studies after 2016). Overall, the evidence map identified six primary operations and 33 variations. For hopeless tooth extraction, immediate implant placement was the most frequently reported (141 studies, 4670 patients); flapless implant placement with hard tissue augmentation and immediate provisionalization was the most commonly reported variation (33 studies, 987 patients). Type 3/4 implant placement (62 studies, 1902 patients) and implant site augmentation (33 studies, 788 patients) were frequently reported for missing teeth. Geographical differences were observed, with type 2 placement studies almost exclusively from Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Research on immediate implant placement was the most reported surgical intervention in the anterior maxilla. Hard tissue augmentation was frequently reported simultaneously with or before implant placement. Immediate provisionalization was mainly used for type 1 implant placement. The finding that six primary operations with 33 variations have been reported indicates the need for additional research to simplify and consolidate the surgical approach.

Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative clinical study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical studies on the accuracy of the photogrammetric imaging technique for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the accuracy (trueness) of photogrammetric imaging for complete arch implant-supported prostheses by comparing photogrammetric imaging with verified conventional splinted impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Completely edentulous arches with at least 4 implants were included. Both photogrammetric imaging and conventional splinted impressions were performed in each jaw. The conventional casts were verified and scanned by using a laboratory scanner as the control. The distances and angulations between different implants (interimplant distances and interimplant angulations) were measured in all photogrammetric and conventional standard tessellation language (STL) files by using a reverse-engineering software program. The distance deviations between the photogrammetric and conventional impressions of the same participant were calculated as the primary outcome, and the angular deviations were obtained as the secondary outcome with descriptive analyses. The comparison between distance deviations and the clinically acceptable level of deviations (150 µm) was conducted by using the 1-sample t test. The effect of interimplant distances, interimplant angulations, and jaw (maxilla or mandible) on deviations was analyzed by using the Spearman correlation analysis, Kruskal-Wallis test, or Student t test, depending on the type of data (α=0.05 for all tests). RESULTS: Fourteen edentulous jaws were included. The overall distance deviation of photogrammetric imaging was 70 ±57 µm, significantly lower than the clinically acceptable level of misfit (150 µm; P<.001). The overall angular deviation was 0.432 ±0.348 degrees. The distance deviations were correlated with interimplant distances with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.371 (P=.002). Interimplant angulation was not correlated with distance or angular deviations (P=.914, P=.914). Jaw was not correlated with distance or angular deviations either (P=.190, P=.209). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy (trueness) of photogrammetric imaging of complete arch implant-supported prostheses was within a clinically acceptable range of errors. Distance deviations increased with greater interimplant distances. Interimplant angulations and jaw (maxilla or mandible) had no significant effect on the accuracy of photogrammetric imaging.

Evidence and risk indicators of non-random sampling in clinical trials in implant dentistry: A systematic appraisal.

AIM: Analysis of distribution of p-values of continuous differences between test and controls after randomization provides evidence of unintentional error, non-random sampling, or data fabrication in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed evidence of highly unusual distributions of baseline characteristics of subjects enrolled in clinical trials in implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RCTs published between 2005 and 2020 were systematically searched in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Baseline patient data were extracted from full text articles by two independent assessors. The hypothesis of non-random sampling was tested by comparing the expected and the observed distribution of the p-values of differences between test and controls after randomization. RESULTS: One-thousand five-hundred and thirty-eight unique RCTs were identified, of which 409 (26.6%) did not report baseline characteristics of the population, and 671 (43.6%) reported data in forms other than mean and standard deviation and could not be used to assess their random sampling. Four-hundred and fifty-eight trials with 1449 baseline variables in the form of mean and standard deviation were assessed. The study observed an over-representation of very small p-values [<.001, 1.38%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-2.12 compared to the expected 0.10%, 95% CI 0.00-0.26]. No evidence of over-representation of larger p-values was observed. Unusual distributions were present in 2.38% of RCTs and more frequent in non-registered trials, in studies supported by non-industry funding, and in multi-centre RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The inability to assess random sampling due to insufficient reporting in 26.6% of trials requires attention. In trials reporting suitable baseline data, unusual distributions were uncommon, and no evidence of data fabrication was detected, but there was evidence of non-random sampling. Continued efforts are necessary to ensure high integrity and trust in the evidence base of the field.

Clinical evaluation of narrow-diameter implants versus standard-diameter implants with lateral bone augmentation in posterior jaws: Three-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of narrow-diameter implants (NDI) with standard-diameter implants (SDI) in conjunction with lateral bone augmentation in atrophic posterior jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients were included and randomly assigned into two groups: Patients in Group 1 received NDI (Ø3.5 mm); patients in Group 2 received SDI (Ø4.3 mm) with simultaneous lateral bone augmentation. Implant survival rates, complications, crestal bone loss, peri-implant conditions, treatment cost, and patient satisfaction were compared. RESULTS: Three patients dropped out the follow-up. No implant loss was observed. The difference in technical complication rates between the two groups was 3.8% (95% CI: -13.7% to 21.3%). No significant differences in crestal bone loss were found between two groups at 3-year follow-up (0.55 ± 0.76 vs 0.41 ± 0.41 mm, p = .429). A total of 20.8% (5/24) of NDI were diagnosed with mucositis and 8.3% (2/24) with peri-implantitis. A total of 17.4% (4/23) of SDI showed mucositis and (1/23) 4.3% showed peri-implantitis. The total cumulative cost of treatment per patient in Group 1 (2849.6 USD, 95% CI: 2726.8-2972.4) was significantly lower than that in Group 2 (3581.4 USD, 95% CI, 3460.9-3701.9) over the 3-year follow-up (p < .01). The patient satisfaction rating of operation was significantly higher in Group 1 (85.42 ± 7.41 vs 80.48 ± 7.95, p = .033). DISCUSSION: NDI yielded favorable implant survival, acceptable technical and biological complications, and high patient satisfaction supporting single crowns in the atrophic posterior region after 3-year follow-up. NDI might be a reasonable alternative in horizontally deficient posterior jaws. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR1800020426.

Does machine-vision-assisted dynamic navigation improve the accuracy of digitally planned prosthetically guided immediate implant placement? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to compare the accuracy of machine-vision (MV)-based dynamic navigation (DN)-assisted immediate implant placement with the conventional freehand technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 24 subjects requiring immediate implant placement in maxillary anterior teeth were randomly assigned to either the control (freehand by an experienced surgeon, n = 12) or the test group (MV-DN, n = 12). Implant platform, implant apex, angular, and depth deviations with respect to prosthetically guided digital planning and differences in implant insertion torque (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: MV-DN resulted in more accurate immediate implant position: significantly smaller global platform deviation (1.01 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.51 ± 0.67 mm, p = .038), platform depth deviation (0.44 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.95 ± 0.68 mm, p = .045), global apex deviation (0.88 ± 0.43 mm vs. 1.94 ± 0.86 mm, p = .001), and lateral apex deviation (0.68 ± 0.30 mm vs. 1.61 ± 0.88 mm, p = .004) were found in MV-DN compared to controls. No significant intergroup differences were observed for ITV and ISQ. CONCLUSIONS: MV-DN achieved more precise immediate implant position and comparable primary stability. Further trials are necessary to assess the benefits in terms of esthetics and tissue health/stability.

Long-term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA).

AIM: To evaluate the long-term survival of short implants and to investigate the association of the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) with the occurrence of biological complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed as a cohort study with a median follow-up of 10.0 years. Patients who had received 6-mm implants were reviewed and assigned into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups (Group L, M, and H) based on the IDRA tool. The implant survival, biological complications, soft tissue condition, hardware complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were performed for survival analysis. RESULTS: A hundred and ten patients were included. The overall cumulative survival rate was 90.9% (L:100.0%, M: 93.3%, and H: 80.6%). A higher risk profile was significantly associated with a decreased implant survival (hazard ratio: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.17-14.36, p < .05). Higher risk profile (hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.32-5.25, p < .05) was a potential risk factor for biological complications. At follow-up, significant differences in bleeding index, modified plaque index, and peri-implant probing depth were found among groups (p < .01). No significant difference was found in MBL. CONCLUSION: Acceptable long-term clinical outcomes could be achieved after 10 years for short implants. Despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in MBL, patients with a high-risk profile of IDRA seem to be at greater risk of implant loss and biological complications.

Accuracy and primary stability of tapered or straight implants placed into fresh extraction socket using dynamic navigation: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and primary stability of tapered and straight implants undergoing immediate implant placement with dynamic navigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with compromised anterior teeth in maxilla were recruited and allocated randomly into (1) tapered implant group (TI group) and (2) straight implant group (SI group). Implants were inserted into fresh sockets with dynamic navigation. Three-dimensional platform deviation, apex deviation, angular deviation, insertion torque value (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty patients with 20 implants were included. The overall platform, apex, and angular deviation were 0.87 ± 0.35 mm, 0.81 ± 0.34 mm, and 2.40 ± 1.31°, respectively. The accuracy was 0.86 ± 0.26 mm, 0.76 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.49 ± 1.54° for TI, and 0.89 ± 0.44 mm, 0.88 ± 0.36 mm, and 2.31 ± 1.01° for SI, with no significant difference (p = 0.85, 0.45, 0.76). Sagittal root position classification (SRP) class I may obtain greater error in numerical values in straight implants (0.97 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.6 ± 0.16 mm, 0.92 ± 0.36 mm vs. 0.73 ± 0.36 mm, 2.48 ± 1.19° vs. 1.71 ± 0.14°). The overall ISQ was 60.74. ISQ was 60.48 for TI and 60.96 for SI, with no significant difference. Acceptable ITV (> 15 Ncm) was achieved in most of the included patients (SI 7/10, TI 9/10). CONCLUSIONS: High accuracy and primary stability of immediate implant placement could be achieved both in tapered and straight implants with dynamic navigation systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tapered and straight implants did not reach a consensus on which was better in immediate implant regarding to accuracy and primary stability. Our study demonstrated implant macrodesign did not affect accuracy and primary stability in immediate implant using dynamic navigation.

Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: A 3-year randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the 3-year clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in the posterior maxilla. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study enrolled 225 patients (225 implants with diameter of 4.1 mm and 4.8 mm) with a posterior maxillary residual bone height (RBH) of 6-8 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (6 mm implants alone), Group 2 (8 mm implants + OSFE) and Group 3 (10 mm implants + OSFE). The following outcomes were recorded at 1 and 3-year examinations: implant survival, probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and technical complications, complication-free survival and treatment costs. RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up, 199 patients (Group 1: 67; Group 2: 62; Group 3: 70) were re-examined. Implant survival rates were 91.80%, 97.08% and 100.00% in groups 1, 2 and 3. Implant survival rate in Group 1 was significantly lower than that in Group 3 (p = 0.029). A multivariate Cox model showed that the short-6-mm implants with wide diameter had a protective effect on implant survival (hazard ratio: 0.59, p = 0.001). No significant differences in BOP%, PPD, mPI, MBL and complication-free survival rate were found among the three groups. The average costs of retreatment were 8.31%, 1.96% and 0.56% of the total costs in groups 1, 2 and 3. The cost to avoid a 1% increase in implant loss associated with 6-mm implants over a 3-year period was 369 CNY (56 USD) using a 10-mm implant with OSFE and 484 CNY (74 USD) using an 8-mm implant with OSFE. CONCLUSION: In the moderately atrophic posterior maxillae, the three treatments showed acceptable clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes with up to 3-year follow-up. 10-mm implants combined with OSFE showed more favourable implant survival and fewer maintenance costs in comparison with short-6-mm implants, which were less expensive.

Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search up to March 2020 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial to identify studies using dynamic navigation in implant surgery, and additional manual search was performed as well. Clinical trials and model studies were selected. The primary outcome was accuracy. A single-arm meta-analysis of continuous data was conducted. Meta-regression was utilized for comparison on study design, guidance method, jaw, and systems. RESULTS: Ten studies, four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and six prospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1,298 drillings and implants were evaluated. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (five clinical trials and five model studies) revealed average global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and angular deviation were 1.02 mm, 95% CI (0.83, 1.21), 1.33 mm, 95% CI (0.98, 1.67), and 3.59°, 95% CI (2.09, 5.09). Meta-regression shown no difference between model studies and clinical trials (p = .295, 0.336, 0.185), drilling holes and implant (p = .36, 0.279, 0.695), maxilla and mandible (p = .875, 0.632, 0.281), and five different systems (p = .762, 0.342, 0.336). CONCLUSION: Accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery reaches a clinically acceptable range and has potential in clinical usage, but more patient-centered outcomes and socio-economic benefits should be reported.

Long-term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation without grafting in severely atrophic maxilla: A 10-year prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to report 10-year results of osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) without grafting severely atrophic maxilla (residual bone height ≤4 mm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing OSFE without grafting and implant placement were included for 10-year examinations. Implant survival, complication-free survival, modified bleeding index (mBI), modified plaque index (mPI), pocket probing depth (PPD), peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG) and mean cost of recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 23 patients with 35 implants attended 10-year examination. Cemented implant crowns or implant-supported fixed dental prostheses were delivered to the patients. Kaplan-Meier implant survival was 89.2% at implant level and 84.1% at patient level. Complication-free survival was 26.0% at patient level and 37.0% at implant level. The average complication-free survival time was 74.6 months (95% CI: 63.2-86.0 months) at implant level and 69.1 months (95% CI: 54.8-83.4 months) at patient level. The mBI, mPI, PPD, MBL and ESBG at 10-year follow-up were 0.91 ± 0.58, 0.48 ± 0.51, 2.94 ± 0.79 mm, 1.63 ± 0.83 mm and 2.72 ± 0.51 mm, respectively. The cost of managing recurrence was 43.6% of the initial cost of treatment. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study indicate that OSFE without grafting is a reliable treatment option in severely atrophic maxilla. Acceptable survival rate, stable MBL and ESBG could be achieved within 10 years. Low complication-free survival and high costs of recurrence management need to be considered.

Long-term outcomes of osteotome sinus floor elevation with or without bone grafting: The 10-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To assess the long-term clinical and radiographic results of implants placed using osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with or without bone grafting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group 1 (OSFE with deproteinized bovine bone mineral) and Group 2 (OSFE without grafting). The patients were recalled at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after surgery. The implant survival, endo-sinus bone gain (ESBG), marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implant bone height (PBH, distance from the most coronal level to the most apical level of bone-to-implant contact), prosthesis survival and hardware complications, and peri-implant soft tissue conditions were assessed. RESULTS: Forty patients attended the 10-year examination. Mean residual bone height was 4.58 ± 1.28 mm. The 10-year cumulative survival rate was 90.7% for Group 1 and 95.0% for Group 2. The PBH was 5.89 ± 1.24 mm for Group 1 and 5.74 ± 1.43 mm for Group 2 at 10 years. The ESBG of both groups remained stable after 3 years. Two-thirds of the implants were free of hardware complications. No significant differences in MBL and peri-implant tissue parameters were found. CONCLUSION: OSFE with or without grafting both yielded predictable clinical outcomes with similar PBH (ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01619956).

Short versus longer implants with osteotome sinus floor elevation for moderately atrophic posterior maxillae: A 1-year randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical, radiographic outcomes and patient satisfaction of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-five patients with 225 implants were included and randomly assigned into three groups (each group: 75 implants) using randomizing table method: group 6 mm (6 mm implants alone), group 8 mm + O (8 mm implants + OSFE) and group 10 mm + O (10 mm implants + OSFE). Outcomes measures were as follows: implant survival, complication, resonance frequency analysis measurement, surgical time, bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket probing depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL) and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The dropout rate was 3.6% at 1 year. Implant survival rates were 96%, 100% and 100% in group 6 mm, group 8 mm + O and group 10 mm + O, respectively. In group 6 mm, the survival rates of implants with diameter of 4.1 mm were 90% (27/30), while the survival rates of implants with diameter of 4.8 mm were 100% (42/42). The surgical time (min) in group 6 mm was significantly shorter than those in group 8 mm + O and group 10 mm + O (13.6 ± 2.2, 19.4 ± 3.7 and 18.3 ± 4.3, respectively, p = 0.03). No significant differences in ISQ values, BOP, PPD, mPI and MBL were found among three groups. Significant higher value of intra-operative discomfort was found in group 6 mm (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: All treatment options provided acceptable clinical and radiographic results up to 1 year after loading. The current 1-year results must be confirmed by longer follow-ups of at least 5 years.

A novel semiautomatic segmentation protocol to evaluate guided bone regeneration outcomes: A pilot randomized, controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (a) present a novel morphological contour interpolation (MCI) algorithm based method to evaluate grafted bone alterations following guided bone regeneration (GBR), (b) compare clinical and radiological outcomes of GBR with two different collagen membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data were retrieved from an ongoing randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: (a) control group (CG): Bio-Gide (b) test group (TG): bovine dermis-derived collagen membrane. Cone beam computed tomography examinations were performed 1 week (T0) and 6 months after surgery (T1). PES/WES at T1, grafted bone volume and density changes from T0 to T1 were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (16/20 in test/control group, respectively) were enrolled in the present study. Excellent inter-observer reliability (ICC ≥ 0.97) was revealed for repeated measurements using this method. Significant volumetric reduction of grafted bone were found in both groups (test group: from 0.60 to 0.39 cm3 , p < 0.01; control group: from 0.54 to 0.31 cm3 , p < 0.01). Mean bone density (gray-scale values) significantly increased from 305.12 to 456.69 in CG (p < 0.01). In TG, it slightly increased from 304.75 to 393.27 (p = 0.25). The mean PES/WES values were 13.84 (6.62/7.22) and 13.90 (6.70/7.20) for TG and CG, respectively. As for inter-group comparison, no significant differences of grafted bone volume change, density change and PES/WES were found between two groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the novel MCI-based method is a reproducible tool to segment and visualize changes of grafted bone in 3D. Furthermore, both collagen membranes could be used as a barrier membrane for GBR in humans.