ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to analyse and compare the position of single-rooted autotransplanted teeth using computer-aided SNT drilling and conventional freehand (FT) drilling, by comparing the planned and performed position at the coronal, apical and angular level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty single-root upper teeth were selected and distributed into the following study groups: A. Autotransplanted tooth using the computer-aided static navigation technique (SNT) (n = 20) and B. Autotransplanted tooth using the conventional free-hand technique (FT) (n = 20). Afterwards, the teeth were embedded into two experimental models and 10 single-root upper teeth were randomly autotransplanted in each experimental model. The experimental models were submitted to a preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan and a digital impression by a 3D intraoral scan, in addition to a postoperative CBCT scan, after the autotransplantation. Datasets from postoperative CBCT scans of the two study groups were uploaded to the 3D implant planning software, aligned with the autotransplantation planning, and the coronal, apical and angular deviations were measured. The results were analysed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistical analysis. RESULTS: Coronal (p = 0.079) and angular (p = 0.208) statistical comparisons did not present statistically significant differences; however, statistically significant differences between the apical deviation of the SNT and FT study groups (p = 0.038) were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-aided static navigation technique does not provide higher accuracy in the positioning of single-root autotransplanted teeth compared to the conventional free-hand technique.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze and compare the survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. Four databases were consulted during the literature search: Pubmed-Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicate articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 46 articles were selected for the qualitative analysis and 32 for the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials, 19 prospective clinical studies, 20 retrospective studies, and 3 case series were included in the meta-analysis. Conventional dental implants failure (n = 3549) were seen in 2.89% (IC-95% 1.83-3.96%), while zygomatic dental implants failure (n = 1895) were seen in 0.69% (IC-95% 0.21-1.16%). The measure of the effect size used was the Odds Ratio, which was estimated at 2.05 with a confidence interval of 95% between 1.22 and 3.44 (z test = 2.73; p-value = 0.006). The failure risk of conventional dental implants is 2.1 times higher than that of zygomatic dental implants. Slight heterogeneity was determined in the meta-analysis between 23 combined studies (Q test = 32.4; p-value = 0.070; I2 = 32.1%). Prosthetic complications were recorded in 4.9% (IC-95% 2.7-7.3%) and mild heterogeneity was observed in a meta-analysis of 28 combined studies (Q test = 88.2; p-value = 0.001; I2 = 69.4%). Sinus complications were seen in 4.7% (IC-95% 2.8-6.5%) and mild heterogeneity was observed in a meta-analysis of 32 combined studies (Q test = 75.3; p-value = 0.001; I2 = 58.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The high survival rate and low prosthetic and sinus complications related to zygomatic dental implants suggest the use of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla.
