Flapless Guided Implant Surgeries Compared with Conventional Surgeries Performed by Nonexperienced Individuals: Randomized and Controlled Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

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.

Minimal invasiveness at dental implant placement: A systematic review with meta-analyses on flapless fully guided surgery

Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the current systematic review was to answer the following PICO question: "In adult human subjects undergoing dental implant placement (P), is minimally invasive flapless computer-aided fully guided (either dynamic or static computer-aided implant placement (sCAIP)) (I) superior to flapped conventional (free-handed implant placement (FHIP) or cast-based/drill partially guided implant placement (dPGIP)) surgery (C), in terms of efficacy, patient morbidity, long-term prognosis, and costs (O)?" Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilling specific inclusion criteria established to answer the PICO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened the titles and abstracts, performed full-text analysis, extracted the data from the published reports, and performed the risk of bias assessment. In cases of disagreement, a third review author took the final decision during ad hoc consensus meetings. The study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses, which were based (wherever possible) on individual patient data (IPD). A total of 10 manuscripts reporting on five RCTs, involving a total of 124 participants and 449 implants, and comparing flapless sCAIP with flapped FHIP/cast-based partially guided implant placement (cPGIP), were included. There was no RCT analyzing flapless dynamic computer-aided implant placement (dCAIP) or flapped dPGIP. Intergroup meta-analyses indicated less depth deviation (difference in means (MD) = -0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.59 to 0.03; moderate certainty), angular deviation (MD = -3.88 degrees; 95% CI: -7.00 to -0.77; high certainty), coronal (MD = -0.6 mm; 95% CI: -1.21 to 0.01; low certainty) and apical (MD = -0.75 mm; 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.07; moderate certainty) three-dimensional bodily deviations, postoperative pain (MD = -17.09 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS); 95% CI: -33.38 to -0.80; low certainty), postoperative swelling (MD = -6.59 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -19.03 to 5.85; very low certainty), intraoperative discomfort (MD = -9.36 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -17.10 to -1.61) and surgery duration (MD = -24.28 minutes; 95% CI: -28.62 to -19.95) in flapless sCAIP than in flapped FHIP/cPGIP. Despite being more accurate than flapped FHIP/cPGIP, flapless sCAIP still resulted in deviations with respect to the planned position (intragroup meta-analytic means: 0.76 mm in depth, 2.57 degrees in angular, 1.43 mm in coronal, and 1.68 in apical three-dimensional bodily position). Moreover, flapless sCAIP presented a 12% group-specific intraoperative complication rate, resulting in an inability to place the implant with this protocol in 7% of cases. Evidence regarding more clinically relevant outcomes of efficacy (implant survival and success, prosthetically and biologically correct positioning), long-term prognosis, and costs, is currently scarce. When the objective is to guarantee minimal invasiveness at implant placement, clinicians could consider the use of flapless sCAIP. A proper case selection and consideration of a safety margin are, however, suggested.

Guided implant surgery with R2Gate®: A multicenter retrospective clinical study with 1 year of follow-up

PURPOSE

To present the results obtained with a novel sleeveless and keyless guided implant surgery system.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for this multicenter clinical retrospective study were fully or partially edentulous patients who had been treated with a sleeveless and keyless guided implant surgery system (R2Gate®, Megagen), and who had been rehabilitated with fixed restorations, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. All surgeries and prosthetic procedures were conducted following the same protocol, and data were obtained from the patients' medical records. The outcomes were the fit and stability of the surgical guide, any intra-operative and immediate post-operative complications, any biologic and prosthetic complications that occurred during the 1-year follow-up period, implant survival, and prosthetic success.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were selected for the installation of 124 implants, through a guided procedure: 66 sleeveless, keyless surgical guides were manufactured. The incidence of immediate intra-operative (lack of space: 12.1%; lack of implant stability 2.6%) and immediate post-operative (pain and discomfort: 6.6%; mild swelling 3.3%) complications was low. In total, 112/124 implants (90.3%) were successfully placed with a guided procedure, in 52 patients; among them, 82 (73.2%) were placed with a flapless procedure. Thirty fixtures supported single crowns (SCs), 42 fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and 52 full-arch (FA) restorations. Sixty-two fixed prosthetic restorations (30 SCs, 22 FPDs and 10 FAs) were delivered; among these restorations, 15 (24.1%) were subjected to immediate functional loading. All implants (100%) survived. Two implants had peri‑implant mucositis (1.6%), two SCs had abutment screw loosenings (1.6%), two FAs and one FPD had ceramic chipping/fracture (2.4%), for an overall prosthetic success amounting to 88.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this study, this novel guided surgery system appeared to be clinically reliable; further studies are needed to confirm these results.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of sleveless and keyless surgical guides can be clinically reliable and may be represent a valid option for the surgeon.