Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping.

AIM: To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis. RESULTS: We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers. CONCLUSIONS: The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

Dental implant register: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5th EAO Consensus Conference 2018.

OBJECTIVES: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 and consensus plenary discussions and statements on a narrative review providing the background and possible facilities and importance of a dental implant register, to allow for a systematic follow-up of the clinical outcome of dental implant treatment in various clinical settings. It should be observed that the format of the review and the subsequent consensus report consciously departs from conventional consensus publications and reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The publication was a narrative review on the presence and significance of quality registers regarding select medical conditions and procedures. The group discussed and evaluated the publication and made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the statements and recommendations described in this consensus report. RESULTS: Possible registrations to be included in an implant register were discussed and agreed as a preliminary basis for further development, meaning that additional parameters be included or some be deleted. CONCLUSIONS: It was agreed to bring the idea of an implant quality register, including the presented results of discussions and proposals by the group- and plenary sessions, to the EAO Board for further discussion and decision.

Dental Implant Quality Register-A possible tool to further improve implant treatment and outcome.

The Board of EAO (European Association for Osseointegration) has discussed an initiative to explore the conditions to establish a Dental Implant Register. It was suggested to bring this issue to the EAO Consensus Conference 2018 for a discussion and to possibly propose relevant and manageable parameters. This article presents some select examples from quality registers in the medical field. Based on the experience of established registers, essentially in the medical field, factors considered to be of importance, if and when establishing a Dental Implant Register are introduced and discussed.

Number of implants placed for complete-arch fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes related to the number of implants utilized to support complete-arch fixed prostheses, both for the maxilla and the mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review followed the reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A focused question using the PICO format was developed, questioning whether "In patients with an implant supported fixed complete dental prosthesis, do implant and prosthetic survival outcomes differ between five or more compared to fewer than five supporting implants?". A comprehensive search of the literature was formulated and performed electronically and by hand search. Two independent reviewers selected the papers and tabulated results. Primary outcomes analyzed were implant and prosthesis survival. Implant distribution, loading, and type of retention were observed as secondary outcomes, as they relate to the number of implants. A meta-analysis was performed to compare results for studies by number of implants. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1,579 abstracts for initial review. Based on evaluation of the abstracts, 359 articles were identified for full-text evaluation. From these, 93 were selected and included in this review, being nine RCTs, 42 prospective and 42 retrospective. Of the 93 selected studies, 28 reported number of implants for the maxilla, 46 for the mandible, and 19 for both maxilla and mandible. The most reported number of implants for the "fewer than five" group is 4 for the maxilla, and 3 and 4 for the mandible, whereas for the "five or more" implants group, the most reported number of implants was 6 for the maxilla and 5 for the mandible. No significant differences in the primary outcomes analyzed were identified when fewer than five implants per arch were compared with five or more implants per arch (p > 0.05), in a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 15 years (median of 8 years). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of fewer than five implants per arch, when compared to five or more implants per arch, to support a fixed prosthesis of the completely edentulous maxilla or mandible, present similar survival rates, with no statistical significant difference at a p < 0.05 and a confidence interval of 95%.

Chronological Age as Factor Influencing the Dental Implant Osseointegration in the Jaw Bone.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate osseointegration of dental implant in the jaw bone in the young and elderly population and comparing the results to assess indicators and risk factors as age for the success or failure of dental implants. A retrospective study of 107 implants (Impladent, LASAK, Czech Republic) was prepared. The patients at implants surgery were divided in three groups. The patients were followed-up for a 7-year period. We evaluated osseointegration from long term point of view as a change of marginal bone levels close to dental implant. Marginal bone levels were recorded and analysed with regard to different patient- and implant-related factors. An influence of chronological age on change of marginal bone levels during 6-year retrospective study vas evaluated. The study examined 47 patient charts and 107 implants from the Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol. We proved that young healthy patients with long bridges or Branemarks have the same progression of marginal bone levels changes. The chronological age hasn't therefore direct influence on the osseointegration from long term point of view. But we found that the length of dental suprastrucure-prosthetic construction negatively influences marginal bone changes, though these results weren't statistically significant. More extensive dental implant suprastrucure undergoes smaller osseointegration. On the other hand the length of dental suprastrucure (prosthetic construction) negatively influences dental osseointegration in both groups of patient.

Long-Term Implant Survival After 100 Maxillary Sinus Augmentations Using Plasma Rich in Growth Factors.

PURPOSE: To identify determinants of long-term implant survival after sinus augmentation procedure (SAP) using a combination of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) and graft material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were included in this retrospective study if they underwent SAP through a lateral wall approach using PRGF in combination with mainly xenograft, and received implants restored for at least 1 year. Sociodemographic, behavioral and implant characteristics (clinical factors, implant details, surgical details, prosthesis details, and complications) were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients received 217 implants in 100 augmented sinuses. The mean follow-up was 7.2 years. Overall, 22 implants failed in 15 patients (90% cumulative implant survival). Multivariable models showed greater implant survival with implants placed with ≥5 mm of residual crestal bone height (RBH) compared with those placed with <3 mm of RBH. There was also an improvement in survival comparing implant lengths. In addition, immediate loading of implants significantly increased the risk of implant failure. CONCLUSION: The use of PRGFs for maxillary sinus grafting may be an effective and safe treatment option for the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous posterior maxillae. However, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Immediate Early and Delayed Implants: A 2-Year Prospective Cohort Study of 131 Transmucosal Flapless Implants Placed in Sites With Different Pre-extractive Endodontic Infections.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate clinical outcome of early, immediate, and delayed transmucosal implants placed in patients affected by acute/chronic endodontic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-five consecutive patients received 131 titanium implants with zirconium-oxide blasted surface. Pre-extractive diagnosis represented the main criteria for implant placement timing, following "best treatment" criteria. Implants were placed with flapless transmucosal technique. Hopeless teeth with chronic periapical lesions received atraumatic extraction, and an implant was immediately placed (Immediate Group, n = 29). Teeth with acute periapical lesion/abscess were extracted and implants placed after 8 to 12 weeks (Early Group, n = 29). Implants placed 10- to 12-month after extraction constituted the control group (delayed group, n = 73). Implants were loaded 3 months after insertion with provisional resin crowns and after approximately 15 days with definitive ceramic crowns. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was measured in a single-blind manner on periapical radiographs at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: Multilevel analysis described exploring factors associated with MBL. Survival rate was 100%. MBL after 24 months was 0.78 ± 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20 to -1.37) at immediate, 0.48 ± 0.70 at early (95% CI: -0.006 to -0.961), and 1.02 ± 1.01 (95% CI: 0.61 to -1.43) at delayed groups. Implant groups (immediate/early/delayed) and location (maxillary/mandibular) showed statistically significant results. Early group showed the lowest MBL values. The immediate group demonstrated less MBL than the delayed group. CONCLUSION: Early implant placement technique preserves periimplant marginal bone level more than immediate and delayed techniques.

Success Rate of Two-Piece Zirconia Implants: A Retrospective Statistical Analysis.

PURPOSE: About 10 years ago, one-piece zirconia implants were introduced to dentistry. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical success of two-piece zirconia implants regarding osseointegration using the manufacturers' warranty data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a period of 4 years (2010-2014), the data of warranty replacements of 15,255 sold Zeramex implants were evaluated retrospectively and blinded. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-seven (2.2%) nonosseointegrated implants were sent back. Zeramex T showed an average success rate of 96.7%, whereas Zeralock implants exhibited an average success rate of 98.5%. Furthermore, Zeramex Plus implants exhibit an average success rate of 99.4% within the investigated period. Assuming, that 2% of the failed implants were unreturned, the above-mentioned values show no changes. Assuming 5% (10%) of unreturned nonosseointegrated implants, the average success rate of Zeramex T decreases from 96.7% to 96.6% (96.4%) and of Zeralock from 98.5% to 98.4% (98.4%), respectively. The success rate of Zeramex Plus implants remains unchanged at 99.4%. CONCLUSION: The results of this study imply that two-piece zirconia implants show competitive success rates, improved from >96.7% to >98.5% over three product generations.

Retrospective cohort study of 4591 Straumann implants in private practice setting, with up to 10-year follow-up. Part 1: multivariate survival analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective, noninterventional, open cohort study is to report on the long-term survival of dental implants, in private practice representing the daily realities of implant treatment. The data are analyzed to discern statistical relationships between explanatory variables and implant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 4591 Straumann implants were placed in 2060 patients between 1999 and 2012. Patients were evaluated after 2-3 months, 1, 3, 5, and 7 years and, in some cases, up to 10 years. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) was calculated according to the life table method and illustrated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Univariate analysis was performed to investigate the association between study variables and time to implant-failure. Variables with P -value < 0.15 were further selected for a multivariate analysis. Statistical methods which take into account the fact that some patients have more than one implant (therefore, dependency between implants within mouth) had been applied. RESULTS: At the implant level, the cumulative survival rates at 3, 5, and 7 years were 99.3%, 99.0%, and 98.4%, respectively, and at the patient level, they were 98.6%, 97.7%, and 95.9%, respectively. After adjustment to possible confounders, the multivariate analysis identified a relationship between the following risk indicators for implant failure: implant location, length and design, timing of implantation, bone grafting procedures and gender. Tissue-Level implants (n = 3863) had a very high survival rate of 99% at 3 years, which was maintained over the entire study period. Bone-Level implants (n = 600) were as predictable with a survival rate of 99% up to 3 years, while Tapered Effect implants (n = 128) demonstrated a lower survival rate of 95% at 5 years. Short 6-mm implants in the mandibular posterior sites had a high survival rate of 100%, while in maxillary posterior positions a survival rate of only 87% was achieved. Patient factors such as smoking, autoimmune disease, and penicillin allergy were tending to associate with higher failure rates. CONCLUSION: High long-term survival rates were observed for a large cohort of Straumann implants. Tissue- and Bone-Level implants had higher survival rates than Tapered Effect implants, and although short implants faired well in the mandibular posterior sites, they faired less well in the maxillary posterior sites. The study represents private practice insight into large-scale, long-term implant results.

Dental implants inserted in male versus female patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL) and post-operative infection for implants inserted in male or female patients, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in December 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. Ninety-one publications were included, with a total of 27,203 implants inserted in men (1185 failures), and 25,154 implants inserted in women (1039 failures). The results suggest that the insertion of dental implants in male patients statistically affected the implant failure rates (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07-1.37, P = 0.002). Due to the limited number of studies reporting results on MBL, it is difficult to estimate the real effect of the insertion of implants in different sexes on the marginal bone level. Due to lack of satisfactory information, meta-analysis for the outcome 'post-operative infection' was not performed. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies.

Guided surgery: accuracy and efficacy.

Different computer-assisted implant-placement procedures are currently available. These differ in software, template manufacture, guiding device, stabilization and fixation. The literature seems to indicate that one has to accept a certain inaccuracy of ±2.0 mm, which seems large initially but is clearly smaller than for nonguided surgery. A reduction of accuracy to below 0.5 mm seems extremely difficult. A common shortcoming identified in the studies included in this review is inconsistency in how clinical data and outcome variables are reported. Another limitation is the small number of comparative clinical studies. In order to find the best guiding system or the most important parameters for optimal accuracy, more randomized clinical trials are necessary. Information on cost-effectiveness and patient-centered evaluations (i.e. questionnaires and interviews) must also be included.

Effect of location on primary stability and healing of dental implants.

PURPOSE: To study implant primary stability and bone healing using resonance frequency analysis in different anatomical locations 4 months after placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-six partially edentulous patients restored by dental implants were included. Overall, 214 implants were placed without bone or soft tissue augmentation. All implants were placed with the same drilling protocol and implant insertion torque (35-40 N · cm). RESULTS: The mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) value at baseline for all the locations was 75.4 mm (95% confidence interval, 74.20-76.59 mm). Higher ISQ values were found in the mandible. A significant difference between ISQ values of each location (P < 0.001) was identified. The mean values obtained showed an increase (3.4%) in all the locations, being greater in the posterior lower and upper maxillae (3.8%), whereas for the anterior maxilla, it was the least (1.5%) 4 months after healing. This increase was statistically significant in the posterior upper and lower maxillae (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Higher implant stability was found in mandible compared with maxilla in both periods, immediately after insertion and 4 months later. Therefore, according to ISQ values, restoring implants immediately after insertion or after a healing period of 4 months represents safe time points.

Patient-related and financial outcomes analysis of conventional full-arch rehabilitation versus the All-on-4 concept: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-related variables such as cost of treatment, length of the treatment period, and comfort provided by the interim prosthesis when treatment planning for full-arch rehabilitation are often neglected in dental publications. METHODS: Two patient cohorts were followed up longitudinally in this study: the "All-on-4 treatment concept group" and the "historical group." The number of implants, total treatment time, number of surgical procedures, number of sinus grafts, necessity for immediate provisional implants, adjusted cost associated for treatment in each group, and the quality of interim prosthesis were compared. RESULTS: The total adjusted cost for patients receiving All-on-4 treatment concept averaged at $42,422 ± 3860 (&OV0556;31,392 ± 2856), whereas the mean total adjusted cost for the historical group was $57,944 ± 20,198 (&OV0556;42,879 ± 2113) (P = 0.01). The difference in cost had a mean value of $7307 (&OV0556;5407) per jaw. Factors associated with complexity of treatment and patient comfort, such as the quality of interim prosthesis, number of surgeries, and duration of treatment time, all significantly favored the All-on-4 treatment concept group in comparison with conventional treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: When implant rehabilitation of the total jaw is sought, the All-on-4 treatment concept should be considered the least costly and least time consuming treatment option.

Accuracy of virtually planned and CAD/CAM-guided implant surgery on plastic models.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Studies of guided implant surgery have identified various methods that could influence accuracy. The present investigation was designed to limit the factors contributing to accuracy and to compare the results for 5 different surgeons. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate any deviation between virtually planned and actually placed implants by 5 surgeons performing computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-guided implant surgery on duplicate plastic models. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five surgeons participated in the study, and each received 5 plastic maxillary jaw models. Thus, 25 models were used for implant placement with CAD/CAM-fabricated surgical templates. Each model contained 6 implants; therefore, a total of 150 implants were placed. The virtually planned and actually placed implant positions were compared for the apex, hexagon, depth, and angle with 2 computed tomography scans that were matched with voxel-based registration software. In addition, any differences in the 4 parameters among the surgeons were statistically tested. The data were analyzed with the t test, ANOVA, and Scheffé test (α=.05). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between the virtually planned and actually placed implant positions was observed for 3 of the 4 outcome variables (the apex, hexagon, and depth; P<.05). A statistically significant difference was also noted among all surgeons regarding the positions of the apex, depth, and angle. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide a better understanding of the differences in accuracy between surgeons when using a CAD/CAM surgical technique. There was a significant difference between the virtually planned and actually placed implant positions and between the surgeons for some of the variable parameters analyzed. The null hypothesis was thus rejected.

Accuracy of virtually planned and conventionally placed implants in edentulous cadaver maxillae and mandibles: a preliminary report.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of mental navigation is thought to depend on the clinician's spatial ability. Mental navigation, therefore, is associated with deviations between the mental plan and the definitive implant position. To learn more about the deviation that might occur, it is important to evaluate the accuracy of mental navigation during placement of implants. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare accuracy outcomes between virtually planned and conventionally placed implants, and among surgeons with varying experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five completely edentulous sets of maxillae and mandibles from human cadaver heads were scanned by computed tomography. Five surgeons planned and placed 60 implants into these jaws, and accuracy was analyzed for 4 parameters: coronal and apical positions, angulation, and depth. The preoperative and postoperative computed tomographies were aligned in voxel-based registration software, which allowed comparison between virtually planned implant positions and actual implant positions. Data were analyzed with the t test (α=.05), ANOVA, and the Scheffé test. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) values were as follows: apex, 2.33 ±1.20 mm (range, 0.51-6.31 mm); coronal, 1.88 ±1.02 mm (range, 0.2-5.0 mm); angle, 7.34 ±3.62 degrees (range, 0.19-16.57 degrees); and depth, 0.03 ±1.15 mm (range, -3.47 to 2.10 mm). The apex and coronal position and the angle differed significantly between the virtually planned and actually placed implants. Significant between-surgeon differences were found in implant depth and coronal position. The apex and coronal positions differed significantly between the upper and lower jaw, with better performance achieved in the upper jaw. CONCLUSIONS: The results found statistically significant differences between the virtually planned and conventionally placed implants and among the 5 surgeons.

Accuracy of implant placement in the posterior maxilla as related to 2 types of surgical guides: a pilot study in the human cadaver.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The position of implants may have an effect on obtaining osseointegration without complications and on the outcome of the prostheses. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery and freehand surgery in the atrophic area of the posterior maxilla. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six human cadavers (Kennedy-Applegate class I) were included in the study. The specimens were randomly classified into 2 categories by using a computer: computer-guided surgery (n=3) and freehand surgery (n=3). Thirty-nine implants were planned with the software. Two types of surgeries were performed. The preoperative computed tomography data were matched with the postoperative computed tomography data by using voxel-based registration software. The position of the planned implants was compared to the actual position of the implants. A multivariate analysis was used for each variable (bone density, length of implant, implant angulation, and surgical technique) to evaluate the effect of these variables on the implant accuracy (α=.05). RESULTS: The statistical tests (Kolmogorov-Smirnov bootstrap) found that guided surgery offered significantly better accuracy for the platform (P=.002), apex (P=.001), and angle (P<.001). However, the accuracy of the 2 methods was similar for the depth parameter (P=.186). The bone density did not influence the implant placement accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-guided surgery was more accurate than a freehand approach for placing implants into bilateral edentulous zones in the posterior maxilla.

[The results of resonance frequency analysis by dental implantation after bone augmentation for alveolar bone atrophy].

The report concerns dental implantation effectiveness in case of jawbone atrophy. Thirty patients were included in the study to reveal resonance frequency analysis rates of intraosseous dental implants by dental implant placement with bone augmentation using the veneer technique of cortico-cancellous blocks and guided bone regeneration (GBR) with biodegradable membranes and pins having poly (dl- lactic acid) base.

Clinical achievements of implantology in the pterygoid region: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the survival rate of pterygoid implants compared to implants placed in different maxilla area and to settle as an alternative solution for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla atrophy. Studies that were included for this systematic review were selected using different database of references: PubMed Medline, Lilacs and Cochrane Library. Other journal platforms were also used for the research. Five articles met the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria of the 180 articles founded. This systematic review was registered on Prospero (CRD42023409706) and followed PRISMA statement. A total of 768 implants placed presented 97.43 % with a peak of 100 % of survival rate. Follow-up period varies from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of six years. Pterygoid implants could be a valid alternative in patients presenting a posterior maxilla atrophy, but results should be interpreted cautiously due to the difficulty of the surgical technique. Further studies in the future should be taken in consideration to confirm the success rate of pterygoid implants since there is only one prospective RCT, potentially incorporating modern technologies such as guided surgery or navigated surgery could be a solution for the success of pterygoid implants, minimizing the risk and less dependent on the operator.

Risk factors associated with early implant failure: A retrospective review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between possible risk factors and early implant failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients receiving dental implant treatment in a four-year timeframe. Patient-related variables (age, sex, smoking, and systemic disease), local factors (area, reason for tooth extraction, and bone quality), surgical variables (bone augmentation, time of implant placement, staging, and antibiotic prophylaxis), and implant-related factors (brand, length, and diameter) were analyzed. Bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression model were used to determine the variables associated with early implant failure. RESULTS: The study group comprised 1323 implants in 738 patients with a mean of 1.8 implants/patient of which, 53 failed in 52 patients in the early stage (before final prosthetic loading). According to the multivariate model, smoking (Odds Ratio=1.836, P=0.031), posterior maxillary region (OR=2.958, P=0.006), implantation in place of teeth extracted due to periodontal problems (OR=2.531, P=0.004), bone type IV (OR=2.881, P=0.008), implant in previously augmented site (OR=2.239, P=0.014), and immediate provisional prosthesis (OR=3.418, P=0.019) were associated with a significantly higher risk of early implant failure. Narrow implants showed a significantly higher risk of early failure in bivariate analyses (P=0.012). However, the effect was no longer significant in the multivariate model (OR=2.322, P=0.068). CONCLUSION: Early implant failure would be more expected in smokers, posterior maxilla, history of periodontal problems, type IV bone, augmented bone, and immediately loaded cases.

Accuracy of full guided vs. half-guided implant surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The benefit in terms of higher accuracy for full guided implant surgery (template based guided cavity preparation and guided implant insertion) compared with half-guided surgery (template based guided cavity preparation and free-handed, manual implant insertion) has not been proved till now. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 38 identical implants were inserted into five human cadaver jaws, after virtual implant planning with the coDiagnostiX(™) device. All cavities were drilled using templates equipped with tubes for guidance. At random, 19 implants were inserted in a free handed way (half-guided), whereas 19 implants were inserted in a guided way through the templates tubes (full guided). Postoperative cone beam computer tomographies (CBCT) were performed, and based on image fusion the total deviations between the virtual implant positions at the implants base and tip were determined and compared between both implantation modi. RESULTS: The mean difference in accuracy between both implantation modalities at the implants bases was 0.72 mm (range: 0.16-1.17 mm, SD: 0.45). The mean difference in accuracy between both modalities at the implants tips was 0.46 mm (range: 0.16-1.23 mm. SD: 0.49). Although full guided implantation showed a generally higher accuracy (mean tip: 1.54 mm, range: 0.33-3.64 mm; mean base: 1.52 mm, range: 0.4-3.54 mm) than half-guided implantation (mean tip: 1.84 mm, range: 0.84-3.22 mm; mean base: 1.56 mm, range: 0.49-3.43 mm), the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of half-guided implant surgery is comparable with full guided implant surgery.