Accuracy of partially and fully guided surgical techniques for immediate implant placement: An in vitro assessment.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Optimal implant positioning is essential to achieving predictable results. Computer-guided surgery has been reported to be an accurate technique for implant placement in healed sites, but the accuracy of guided techniques for immediate implant placement into fresh sockets is still unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this experimental randomized split-mouth study in pig jaws was to determine the accuracy of partially and fully guided surgical techniques for immediate implant placement into fresh sockets and to compare 2 different methods of implant position deviations analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty implants were installed in 10 pig jaws using 2 different techniques: partially guided (n=10) and fully guided (n=10). Cone beam computed tomography and digital scanning were performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Two methods were used to evaluate implant deviations: tomographic and digital scanning. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used. Deviation comparisons were carried out by using paired t tests (α=.05), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to assess the agreement between the 2 methods of implant deviation analysis. RESULTS: In the tomographic analysis, the partially guided technique resulted in significantly higher global apical and lateral coronal deviations (2.25 ±0.59 mm; 0.96 ±0.55 mm) than fully guided (1.52 ±0.89 mm; 0.75 ±0.52 mm) (P<.01 and P<.05, respectively). The analysis performed using digital scanning showed significantly higher angular, global apical, and lateral apical deviations in the partially guided (6 ±3.28 degrees; 2.49 ±1.03 mm; 2.16 ±1.07 mm) technique than in the fully guided (3.32 ±1.84 degrees; 1.5 ±0.58 mm; 0.98 ±0.67 mm) (P<.05). An ICC of 0.522 between the 2 methods of implant deviation analysis was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The partially guided technique was less accurate than the fully guided technique for immediate implant placement into fresh sockets. A moderate concordance was observed between cone beam computed tomography and digital scanning analyses, suggesting that more studies are required to validate and to define the most reliable method of measuring implant deviation.

Socket regeneration after immediate loading implants with tissue and bone graft: 1-year clinical follow-up

Evaluation of ridge alteration after 1 year follow up after immediate loading implant placement. Methods: Ten patients were included in the study, in whom the ridge volume, height, and thickness were evaluated from region of interest (ROI) of tomographic images of the operated areas (test group) and compared to the opposite tooth (control group). Results: After one year, there was no implant loss and all patients were satisfied with the treatment. In the test group there was a statistically significant increase in ridge height (2.89±1.05 mm) when compared to the control group. No significant difference in relation to ridge volume and thickness was observed. In the intragroup evaluation, a significant gain in ridge height (2.65±3.08 mm) was observed when compared to baseline. Conclusion: The placement of an immediate implant, temporary crown, and tissue regeneration in sockets with buccal defects promotes the regeneration of the buccal wall while preventing the reduction of bone volume and thickness

Effect of osseodensification on the increase in ridge thickness and the prevention of buccal peri-implant defects: an in vitro randomized split mouth pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Implant installation with conventional drilling can create buccal bone defects in areas of limited ridge thickness. Implant installation with osseodensification may aid in preventing buccal bone defects in these situations. This in vitro pilot study evaluated the impact of osseodensification on the increase in alveolar ridge thickness and the prevention of buccal peri-implant defects. METHODS: Ten fresh pig mandibles with limited bone thickness were selected for use in an experimental randomized split mouth pilot study. Two site-preparation protocols were used: conventional drilling with cutting burs (CTL, n = 10) and osseodensification with Densah® burs (OD, n = 10). After implant bed preparation, 20 implants (4.5 × 10 mm) were placed in the prepared sites and the insertion torque was recorded. Clinical and photographic analysis evaluated ridge thickness and the extent (height, width, and area) of bone defects in the buccal and lingual bone walls following implant placement. Three-dimensional measurements were performed using STL files to analyze the increase in buccal ridge thickness following site preparation and implant placement. The height of the buccal bone defect was considered as the primary outcome of this study. Defect width, area, implant insertion torque, and linear buccal ridge increase after implant site preparation and installation were also assessed. Non-parametric evaluations were carried out with the Mann-Whitney test to verify intergroup differences. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the baseline ridge thickness. OD presented a significantly higher insertion torque, associated with reduced buccal and lingual bone defect width, in comparison to CTL. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in buccal ridge thickness after site preparation and implant placement was significantly higher in OD compared to CTL. Osseodensification increased the ridge thickness through expansion and reduced buccal bone defects after implant installation.