Proof of Concept of a New 3D-Guided System for a Single Implant Overdenture in the Mandible: An In Vitro Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the precision and efficiency of a novel guide system for single implant placement in the mandibular symphyses and to evaluate whether the outcome is affected by the level of operator experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 implants were placed in three different mandibular cast types (Cawood and Howell class III, IV, and V). For each model, a complete denture was 3D printed. A polyether ether ketone rail with a guide sleeve was embedded in the middle of the denture. To determine the ideal implant position, the sleeve could be moved in a buccolingual direction. Adjustment of implant angulation was possible, and an angle correction of 0, 12, or 24 degrees was available. A total of 30 clinicians were divided into three groups: group 1 (experienced, n = 10), group 2 (beginner, n = 10), and group 3 (inexperienced, n = 10). Each clinician was asked to plan and perform a guided flapless implant placement in the mandibular symphysis. Two preoperative CBCT scans were taken; the first was to verify the planning, and the second was to adjust the planning if needed. Finally, a postoperative CBCT scan was taken to compare the planning to the final implant position. RESULTS: Based on the first CBCT, the clinicians adjusted their planning by an average of 1.66 ± 1.65 mm coronally, 2.41 ± 2.44 mm apically, and by a mean angular correction of 6.08 ± 0.77 degrees. After implant placement, the mean deviation from the planned implant position was 0.87 ± 0.58 mm at the coronal aspect and 0.98 ± 0.64 mm at the apical aspect. The mean angular deviation was 6.05 ± 0.71 degrees. Overall, there were no significant differences in coronal and apical deviation (P > .05) based on the level of experience. In terms of angulation, a significant difference was found in both planning (P = .049) and placement (P = .038) between beginners and experienced clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Guided implant placement of a single implant in the mandibular symphysis using a removable denture with guide sleeve had an acceptable level of accuracy. Clinicians with limited experience spent more time on the procedure, resulting in less angular deviation during implant planning and placement compared to experienced clinicians.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial on alveolar ridge preservation with immediate or delayed implant placement: Need for soft-tissue augmentation.

AIM: To assess the impact of the timing of implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on the need for soft-tissue augmentation (STA) and to identify the risk factors for horizontal and vertical soft-tissue loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single failing tooth in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were treated at six centres. Following tooth extraction, they were randomly allocated to the test group (immediate implant placement, IIP) or control group (delayed implant placement, DIP). ARP was performed in both groups and implants were immediately restored with an implant-supported provisional crown. Six months after tooth extraction and ARP, a panel of five blinded clinicians assessed the need for STA on the basis of anonymized clinical pictures and a digital surface model. Lack of buccal soft-tissue convexity and/or mid-facial recession qualified for STA. Pre-operative and 6-month digital surface models were superimposed to assess horizontal and vertical soft-tissue changes. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included per group (test: 20 females, 10 males, mean age 53.1; control: 15 females, 15 males, mean age 59.8). The panel deemed STA as necessary in 24.1% and 35.7% of the cases following IIP and DIP, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.54-5.84]; p = .343). Loss of buccal soft-tissue profile was higher following DIP (estimated mean ratio = 1.66; 95% CI [1.10-2.52]; p = .018), as was mid-facial recession (mean difference [MD] = 0.47 mm; 95% CI [0.12-0.83]; p = .011). Besides DIP, regression analysis identified soft-tissue thickness (-0.57; 95% CI [-1.14 to -0.01]; p = .045) and buccal bone dehiscence (0.17; 95% CI [0.01-0.34]; p = .045) as additional risk factors for mid-facial recession. Surgeons found IIP significantly more difficult than DIP (visual analogue scale MD = -34.57; 95% CI [-48.79 to -20.36]; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-centre randomized controlled trial failed to demonstrate a significant difference in the need for STA between IIP and DIP when judged by a panel of blinded clinicians. Based on objective soft-tissue changes, patients with thin buccal soft tissues, with a buccal bone dehiscence and treated with a delayed approach appeared particularly prone to soft-tissue loss.