Comparative Study between an Immediate Loading Protocol Using the Digital Workflow and a Conventional Protocol for Dental Implant Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: The purposes of this randomized clinical trial study was to compare the immediate loading of dental implants while employing digital workflow and conventional implants in terms of the success rate, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction. Methods: Fifty patients who had edentulous area on the mandibular premolar or molar area were included in the study. Twenty-five patients were assigned to immediate loading implant treatment using the digital technique and 25 patients were assigned to conventional loading implant treatment. In the first group, the patients were received digital impression (Cerec Omnicam, Dentsply Sirona(®), York, PA, USA), designed, producing zirconia crown, and inserted on the same surgery day. The second group, after a healing period of three months, was received analog impression following conventional impression for the zirconia crown. Clinical outcome and radiographic bone level were evaluated after three, six, and 12 months. Patient satisfaction was measured at 12 months after inserting the implant. Results: There was no implants and protheses failure in both groups. The mean resonance frequency analysis values at the day of surgery were 78.26 ± 4.09 in immediate loading using the digital group (ILD) and 73.74 ± 5.14 in the conventional loading group (CL), respectively. Insertion torque values at the day of surgery were 36.60 ± 12.64 in ILD and 38.8 ± 12.19 CL, respectively. The marginal bone level in CL at three, six, and 12 months were 0.14 ± 0.28 mm, 0.18 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.17 ± 0.29 mm, respectively, while in ILD at three, six, and 12 months were 0.18 ± 0.33 mm and 0.16 ± 0.27 mm and 0.15 ± 0.31, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Only one question in patient satisfaction’s questionnaire was “Now, can your dental implant and crown be used well?” had been significantly different in favor to the conventional group. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, it may be concluded that, after one-year follow up, there were no statistically significant differences between the immediate loading of dental implants employed from the digital workflow and conventional implant treatment technique in the success rate and marginal bone level. In patient satisfaction, there was only statistic significant difference in question related to implant prosthetic function in favor of the CL group, whereas the question concerning speaking, cleansing, price, and expectation displayed no difference.