Accuracy of navigation guided implant surgery for immediate loading complete arch restorations: Prospective clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess navigation accuracy for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading of digitally prefabricated provisional. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive edentulous and terminal dentition patients requiring at least one complete-arch FDP were treated between December 2020 and January 2022. Accuracy was evaluated by superimposing pre-operative and post-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), recording linear (mm) and angular (degrees) deviations. T-tests were performed to investigate the potential effect of the registration algorithm (fiducial-based vs. fiducial-free), type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm (teeth vs. bone screws), site characteristic (healed vs. post-extractive), implant angulation (axial vs. tilted), type of arch (maxilla vs. mandible) on the accuracy with p-value <0.05. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients, 36 complete-arches, and 161 implants were placed. The overall mean angular deviation was 2.19° (SD 1.26°). The global platform and apex mean deviations were 1.17 mm (SD 0.57 mm), and 1.30 mm (SD 0.62 mm). Meaningful global platform (p = 0.0009) and apical (p = 0.0109) deviations were experienced only between healed and post-extraction sites. None of the analyzed variables significantly influenced angular deviation. Minor single-axis deviations were reported for the type of jaw (y-axis at implant platform and apex), registration algorithm (y-axis platform and z-axis deviations), and type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to implant angulation. CONCLUSIONS: Within the study limitations navigation was reliable for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading digitally pre-fabricated FDP. AI-driven surface anatomy identification and calibration protocol made fiducial-free registration as accurate as fiducial-based, teeth and bone screws equal as references. Implant site characteristics were the only statistically significant variable with healed sites reporting higher accuracy compared to post-extractive. Live-tracked navigation surgery enhanced operator performance and accuracy regardless of implant angulation and type of jaw. A mean safety room of about 1 mm and 2° should be considered.

Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive versus silk sutures for mandibular third molar surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive has been presented as an alternative to sutures and several studies have compared them. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive on postoperative pain and swelling, following mandibular third molar surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Database search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus, along with extensive search in the grey literature, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that applied cyanoacrylate adhesive for closing mandibular third molar surgical sites and compared it with silk sutures, assessing postoperative pain and swelling. The search ended on September 22, 2023. RESULTS: Of 886 identified articles, six were included and meta-analyzed. Applying cyanoacrylate demonstrated a reduction in the overall postoperative pain (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.15, p = 0.009). A similar outcome was noted when pain was evaluated on the first and last postoperative days, based on controlled clinical trials (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.03, p = 0.04), and randomized trials (SMD = -0.97, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.62, p < 0.00001). Patients/sides received cyanoacrylate showed a decrease in postoperative swelling (SMD = -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01, p = 0.04). Following the GRADE rating system, the quality of evidence on pain and swelling was judged as moderate and low, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of cyanoacrylate adhesive may offer benefit in reducing postoperative pain and swelling following mandibular third molar surgery. Nevertheless, this should be further investigated, considering the low number of included reports. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current results could help clinicians who perform this procedure to manage postoperative pain and swelling more effectively.

Oral Fluid Biomarkers for Peri-Implantitis: A Scoping Review.

Peri-implantitis, a prevalent complication in dental implant therapy, poses a significant threat to long-term implant success. The identification of reliable biomarkers for the early detection and monitoring of peri-implantitis is crucial for timely intervention and improved treatment outcomes. Salivary and peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) biomarkers have become promising diagnostic tools in the field of implant dentistry. This scoping review aims to explore current studies in the literature on salivary and PISF biomarkers for peri-implantitis. A systematic search was conducted on 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) to identify relevant studies published up to January 2023. A total of 86 articles were included, which underwent data extraction and analysis. Several biomarkers have been investigated in salivary and PISF samples for association with peri-implantitis. Investigations included a wide range of biomarkers, including inflammatory markers, matrix metalloproteinases and bone loss markers. The findings suggested that certain salivary and PISF biomarkers demonstrated potential in distinguishing healthy peri-implant conditions from peri-implantitis. Elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and matrix metalloproteinases, have been consistently associated with peri-implantitis. Additionally, alterations in bone loss markers have shown potential as indicators of disease progression and treatment response. In conclusion, this scoping review provides an overview of current knowledge on salivary and PISF biomarkers for peri-implantitis. The identified biomarkers are promising as noninvasive diagnostic tools for early detection, monitoring, and personalised management of peri-implantitis. Future studies should focus on establishing standardised protocols and conducting well-designed clinical trials to validate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical relevance of these biomarkers.

Computer-assisted and robotic implant surgery: Assessing the outcome measures of accuracy and educational implications.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to (1) critically evaluate the outcomes measures used to assess the accuracy of implant placement with Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) and (2) review the evidence supporting the efficient implementation of CAIS in training and education of clinicians. METHODS: A scoping literature review was conducted aiming to identify (a) clinical trials assessing accuracy of implant placement with CAIS, and (b) clinical trials or simulation/cadaver studies where CAIS was utilised and assessed for the training/education of clinicians. Studies since 1995 were assessed for suitability and data related to the outcomes measures of accuracy and educational efficacy were extracted and synthesised. RESULTS: Accuracy of CAIS has been mainly assessed through surrogate measures. Individual clinical trials have not shown any difference between static and dynamic CAIS, but recent meta-analyses suggest an advantage of dynamic CAIS in reducing angular deviation. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS might offer higher accuracy than each of the two used alone. Dynamic CAIS is suitable for novice surgeons and might even have added value as an education tool for implant surgery, although mastering the technique requires longer training than static. CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses of large samples, new and diverse outcomes measures, as well as benchmarking of levels of accuracy with specific clinical outcomes will help to better understand the potential and limitations of CAIS. Dynamic CAIS is suitable for novice operators, but educational interventions distributed over longer periods of time will be required for mastery of the process.

The accuracy of implant placement using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous arches: A prospective controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of implant position, using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), with either static, dynamic, or freehand implant placement, in fully edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with a total of 88 fixtures were included. Implants were divided equally into four groups: a combination of static and dynamic CAIS (SD group), static CAIS (S group), dynamic CAIS (D group), and freehand placement (FH group). Angular deviation, as well as the 3D platform and apex deviations, were measured for all groups. Furthermore, the direction of implant deviation was recorded and compared. RESULTS: The FH group showed significantly more deviation compared to all groups, considering all the aspects, and at both the implant platform and apex. A significant difference in angular deviation between the SD and S groups (p < .001), and between the SD and D groups (p < .001) was noted, favoring the SD group. When evaluating implant distribution, the FH group showed a tendency towards the buccal, apical, and distal directions at platform and apex, while in the D group, implants shifted more to the buccal. In contrast, the SD group did not show a trend toward any specific direction. The S and SD groups did not show a statistical significance considering any direction. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of static and dynamic CAIS increases the accuracy of implant placement in fully edentulous arches when compared with either static or dynamic CAIS alone, as well as freehand placement.

The clinical efficacy of the allogenic demineralized dentin matrix graft for implant placement: a systematic review.

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.

Association of prosthetic angles of the Implant Supracrestal Complex with peri-implant tissue mucositis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the association of the Mucosal Emergence Angle (MEA) with peri-implant tissue mucositis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with 103 posterior bone level implants underwent clinical and radiographic examination. Three-dimensional data from Cone Bean Computer Tomography and Optica Scan were transposed. Three angles were defined: MEA, Deep Angle (DA) and Total Angle (TA) and measured at six sites for each implant. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between MEA and Bleeding on Probing for all sites with an overall odds ratio of odd ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.09, p < 0.001). Sites with MEA ≥ 30°, 40°, 50°, 60°, and 70° had a higher risk for bleeding with an odds ratio of 3.1, 5, 7.5, 11.4 and 33.55, respectively. When all 6 sites of an implant prostheses had MEA ≥ 40°, the risk of having bleeding at all 6 sites was 9.5 times higher (95% CI 1.70-52.97, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining MEA no wider than 30°-40° is advisable, while the aim should be to keep this angle as narrow as clinically feasible. Registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry: http://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220204002.

Training of novice surgeons using dynamic computer assisted dental implant surgery: An exploratory randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) systems have been shown to improve accuracy of implant placement, thus training in the use of such systems is becoming increasingly important. There is a scarcity of research on how to implement dynamic CAIS training in the settings of postgraduate university education. PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of two modes of CAIS training programs on motor skill acquisition of novice surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six postgraduate students without experience in dynamic CAIS systems were randomly assigned to a distributed training program (3 training sessions over 3 days) or a massed training (3 training sessions over the same day). A post-test involving the placement of one implant was conducted for both groups, 7 days after completion of the training. Surgical time and implant accuracy were recorded and analyzed, using independent t-tests, with 0.05 significant level. RESULTS: Both groups reached the accuracy benchmarks expected by current standards in the use of CAIS. No significant differences with regards to accuracy were found between the groups, but a trend was documented favoring performance of distributed (mean difference-0.4, 95% confidence interval-0.7-0.1) in the accuracy at platform level. Distributed training students performed faster than massed for the third trial (mean difference-95.0, 95% confidence interval-178.8 to -11.2). CONCLUSIONS: Novice students reached the accuracy benchmarks with the use of CAIS through both a massed and a distributed training program, while there was a strong but marginally not significant trend for higher accuracy in the distributed group. Students who received the training in the distributed format over the process of different days, performed faster. Trial registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry: https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20230109002. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization.

Accuracy of implant placement with a combined use of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare implant accuracy of combined static and dynamic (SD) computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) with static (S), dynamic (D) CAIS, and freehand surgery (FH) for single implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients were randomized into four groups. Implants were placed using both stereolithographic surgical guide and dynamic navigation in the SD group, stereolithographic surgical guide in S group, dynamic navigation in D group, and conventional freehand in FH group. Analysis of deviation between planned and final implant position, as well as K means analysis was conducted for implant deviation at platform, apex, and angle (primary outcomes) and directional distribution at platform and apex (secondary outcome). RESULTS: Significant differences were found among the four groups (p < .001): The 3D deviation at the platform (mm) of SD, S, D, and FH groups was 0.62 ± 0.50, 1.06 ± 0.67, 1.02 ± 0.45, and 1.48 ± 0.68, respectively, at apex (mm) was 0.75 ± 0.57, 1.40 ± 0.71, 1.28 ± 0.50, and 2.18 ± 0.95, respectively, and angle (degrees) was 1.24 ± 1.41, 3.18 ± 2.04, 3.28 ± 1.57, and 7.50 ± 4.06, respectively. Deviation at the platform of FH group was significantly more toward mesial (p = .026) and coronal (p = .014) direction, while at the apex, toward distal (p = .004) and lingual (p = .002) than SD group. CONCLUSION: The use of combined static and dynamic CAIS provided significantly higher accuracy than the two alone and freehand surgery for single implant placement.

Can computer-assisted implant surgery improve clinical outcomes and reduce the frequency and intensity of complications in implant dentistry? A critical review.

Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), either static or dynamic, is well documented to significantly improve the accuracy of implant placement. Whether the increased accuracy leads to a corresponding improvement in clinical outcomes has not yet been systematically investigated. The aim of this critical review was to investigate whether the use of CAIS can lead to reduction of complications as well as improved clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when compared with conventional freehand implant surgery. A comprehensive online search was conducted to identify studies where implants were installed with static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS)or dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery(d-CAIS) or combinations of the two, either compared with conventional free-hand implant placement or not. Seventy-seven studies were finally included in qualitative analysis, while data from three studies assessing postsurgical pain were suitable for a meta-analysis. Only a small number of the available studies were comparative. The current evidence does not suggest any difference with regard to intraoperative complications, immediate postsurgical healing, osseointegration success, and survival of implants placed with CAIS or freehand protocols. Intraoperative and early healing events as reported by patients in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) did not differ significantly between CAIS used with flap elevation and conventional implant placement. There is limited evidence that increased accuracy of placement with CAIS is correlated with superior esthetic outcomes. Use of CAIS does not significantly reduce the length of surgeries in cases of single implants and partially edentulous patients, although there appears to be a more favorable impact in fully edentulous patients. Although CAIS alone does not seem to improve healing and the clinical and PRO, to the extent that it can increase the utilization of flapless surgery and predictability of immediacy protocols, its use may indirectly lead to substantial improvements in all of the above parameters.

The impact of deproteinized bovine bone particle size on histological and clinical bone healing outcomes in the augmented sinus: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of different deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particle sizes on bone healing in maxillary sinus floor augmentation remains unclear. This study compared the newly formed tissue and angiogenesis-related bone healing after sinus floor augmentation using large or small DBBM particles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall 32 patients were randomly divided into two groups using either large (1-2 mm) or small (0.25-1 mm) DBBM particles for sinus floor augmentation. After 6 months, the mineralized tissue volume was calculated using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis. The newly formed tissue composition was histomorphometrically analyzed. Angiogenesis was also examined by means of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression. Implant failure and marginal bone loss were measured at a 1-year follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed using independent samples t-test. RESULTS: Micro-CT analysis demonstrated that grafting with large particles resulted in higher bone volume (6.99 ± 2.72 mm3 , p = 0.002) and Bone Volume/Tissue Volume (0.25 ± 0.1, p = 0.03) compared with small particles (3.76 ± 1.83 mm3 and 0.14 ± 0.13, respectively). Small particles showed higher non-mineralized tissue volume (26.31 mm3 ) compared with large particle group (17.4 ± 5.34 mm3 ) with p = 0.001. The histological data revealed significantly higher area of newly formed bone (32.15% ± 14.04% for the large particle and 15.99% ± 14.12% for the small particle groups, p = 0.004). Likewise, non-mineralized tissue was significantly greater in the small particle group (66.48% ± 20.97%) compared with the large particle group (44.36%, p = 0.016). Moreover, use of large particles resulted in a significantly higher VEGF staining intensity score and VEFG positive cells. No implant failure was recorded in both groups, while no difference was found in terms of marginal bone loss at the 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Sinus floor augmentation using large DBBM particles resulted in more angiogenesis expression, higher bone volume, and new bone formation at 6 months after sinus augmentation. However, clinical outcomes with regards to implant placement were similar in both groups.

Impact of design elements of the implant supracrestal complex (ISC) on the risk of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A critical review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to investigate the evidence correlating the emergence profile (EP) and emergence angle (EA), peri-implant tissue height, implant neck design, abutment and/or prosthesis material, retention and connection types with risk of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. METHODS: Seven focus questions were identified, and seven electronic search queries were conducted in PubMed. Human studies reporting on bleeding on probing, probing depth or case definitions of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were included. RESULTS: Emerging evidence with bone-level implants suggests a link between EA combined with convex EP and peri-implantitis. Depth of the peri-implant sulcus of ≥3 mm is shown to be reducing the effectiveness of treatment of established peri-implant mucositis. Modification of the prosthesis contour is shown to be an effective supplement of the anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Limited evidence points to no difference with regard to the risk for peri-implant mucositis between tissue- and bone-level implants, as well as the material of the abutment or the prosthesis. Limited evidence suggests the use or not of prosthetic abutments in external connections and does not change the risk for peri-implantitis. Literature with regard to prosthesis retention type and risk for peri-implantitis is inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence indicates the involvement of EA, EP, sulcus depth and restricted accessibility to oral hygiene in the manifestation and/or management of peri-implant mucositis/peri-implantitis. Conclusions are limited by the lack of consensus definitions and validated outcomes measures, as well as diverse methodological approaches. Purpose-designed studies are required to clarify current observations.

Comparing patient-reported outcomes and experiences among static, dynamic computer-aided, and conventional freehand dental implant placement: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and experiences (PROs and PREs) among three techniques of dental implant placement, including (a) conventional freehand, (b) dynamic, and (c) static computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety patients were randomly assigned to have dental implant placed with one of the three protocols. Participants were asked to fill in a series of self-administered questionnaires assessing (1) preoperative expectations, (2) postoperative healing events during the first week after surgery, and (3) experiences and overall satisfaction with the procedures at 2 weeks. Differences within the groups were analyzed by Wilcoxson signed-rank test. Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparisons among the three groups. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients completed the study. Patients' expectations on chewing difficulty, the postoperative experience of duration of pain, speaking limitations, and impact on routine activities were significantly different among groups (p = 0.04, 0.01, 0.038, and 0.046, respectively). Overall, patients appeared to significantly underestimate the duration of postoperative pain (p = 0.035) and swelling (p = 0.001). No significant difference in magnitude of postoperative pain, swelling, and painkiller consumption was found among the groups. The short-term functional limitations after surgery were deemed acceptable by most participants and 89% were satisfied by the overall procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical placement of dental implant with conventional freehand, static, and dynamic CAIS techniques did not result in any difference in the level of postoperative pain and swelling, and appeared to lead to equal levels of satisfaction as expressed by the patients postoperatively.

Comparison of the accuracy of implant placement using different drilling systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery: A simulation-based experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Different designs of surgical drilling systems have been developed for the purpose of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS), but there is at present little understanding of how design principles affect the accuracy of implant placement. PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement among five drilling systems of sCAIS in a controlled experimental setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five 3D printed models with two edentulous bilateral premolar spaces were allocated to five different drilling systems: group A: sleeve-in-sleeve, group B: sleeve-in-sleeve with self-locking, group C: mounted sleeve-on-drill, group D: integrated sleeve-on-drill with metal sleeve in the guide, group E: integrated sleeve-on-drill without metal sleeve. Models were scanned with CBCT and optical scanner. All implants were digitally planned and 10 implants placed with sCAIS in each group. Postoperative 3D deviation of placed vs planned position was measured by means of platform, apex and angular deviation. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test (P ≤ .05). Pairwise comparisons were tested with Dunn's test with adjusted P values. RESULTS: The overall platform deviation ranged from 0.42 ± 0.12 mm (group B) to 1.18 ± 0.19 mm (group C). The overall apex deviation ranged from 0.76 ± 0.22 mm (group B) to 1.95 ± 0.48 mm (group D). The overall angular deviation ranged from 2.50 ± 0.89 degree (group B) to 5.30 ± 1.04 degree (group E). Group A and B showed significantly less angular deviation than groups D and E (P < .05). There was no statistically significant differences in all parameters between group A and B, as well as between group D and E (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found with regards to accuracy among the five sCAIS systems tested, suggesting that the drilling protocol, the devices used and the design principles of the guides could influence the accuracy of implant placement.

Comparison of the accuracy of implant position for two-implants supported fixed dental prosthesis using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

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.

The effect of systemic antibiotics on clinical and patient-reported outcome measures of oral implant therapy with simultaneous guided bone regeneration.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present superiority study was to determine the effect of systemic antibiotics primarily on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and post-surgical complications in patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 236 medically and periodontally healthy patients received oral implants with simultaneous GBR at seven centres. Pre-operative antibiotics of 2 g amoxicillin were prescribed to the test group 1 hr prior to surgery and 500 mg thrice daily on days 1-3 after surgery. The control group was given a placebo. Group allocation was performed randomly. Primary outcome variables were PROMs recorded as visual analogue scale scores assessed on days 1-7 and 14 on pain, swelling, haematoma and bleeding. Post-operative complications as secondary outcome variables were examined at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks from surgery. Chi-square tests and repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences (p > .05) between the two groups were detected for the evaluated PROMs. The same was noted with respect to post-surgical complications. Four implants were lost-three in the test group and one in the control group. CONCLUSION: In this trial, systemic antibiotics did not provide additional benefits to PROMs, nor the prevention of post-surgical complications in medically and periodontally healthy patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous GBR. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are still required to support the clinical outcomes of this study.

The accuracy of single-tooth implants placed using fully digital-guided surgery and freehand implant surgery.

AIM: This randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) aimed to compare the accuracy of implant positions between static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) and freehand implant surgery in a single edentulous space. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sites with single edentulous spaces and neighbouring natural teeth were randomized into static CAIS or freehand implant surgery groups. In both groups, digital implant planning was performed using data from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and surface scans. In the static CAIS group, a surgical guide was produced and used for fully guided implant surgery, while in the freehand group, the implants were placed in a freehand manner. Postoperative CBCT was used for nine measurements representing the deviations in angles, implant shoulders and apexes between planned and actual implant positions. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients received 60 single implants. The median (IQR) deviations in angles, shoulders and apexes were 2.8 (2.6)°, 0.9 (0.8) mm and 1.2 (0.9) mm, respectively, in the static CAIS group, and 7.0 (7.0)°, 1.3 (0.7) mm and 2.2 (1.2) mm, respectively, in the freehand group. Statistically significant differences were found in 6 out of nine measured parameters using Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Static CAIS provided more accuracy in implant positions than freehand placement in a single edentulous space.

The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial.

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).

Measuring the impact of simulation practice on the spatial representation ability of dentists by means of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar (IMTM) Surgery on 3D printed models.

INTRODUCTION: The ability of spatial representation is one of the most important competences of an oral surgeon, but also a challenging competence to assess in educational settings. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the impact of a hands-on simulation practice on the development of the Dental Anatomy Spatial Representation Ability (DASRA) of recent dental graduates, using a novel assessment instrument based on CBCT radiographic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A novel instrument for the measurement of DASRA for oral surgery was developed, utilising panoramic, sagittal and horizontal slices from 3D radiographic imaging of impacted wisdom teeth. Twenty-one young dentists (nine males and 12 females) were enrolled in this study. After measurement of dentists' perceptual ability (PA), all dentists completed a DASRA drawing test and thereafter practiced surgical extraction on 3D printed models, which were based on actual patients' anatomy. A second DASRA was administered after the hands-on exercise, followed by a feedback survey. RESULTS: A slight increase in DASRA scores was revealed after practicing on models, which however did not reach statistical significance. However, statistically significant decrease in drawing time was observed after hands-on experiences (P < 0.001), while important qualitative improvements were noted, such as dentists' ability to position the mandibular nerve. Dentists perceived 3D printed model as a very effective and efficient manner in planning and practicing of surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: An instrument for the measurement of DASRA based on 3D radiographic imaging might support educators in the assessment of spatial skills of novice surgeons. Practice on 3D printed, anatomically precise models can benefit dentists on pre-clinical surgical training and has the potential of improving their dental anatomy spatial representation ability.