Cargando…

Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up

(1) Background: Prosthetically-driven implant positioning is a prerequisite for long-term successful treatment. Transferring the planned implant position information to the clinical setting could be done using either static or dynamic guided techniques. The 3D model of the bone and surrounding struc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cristache, Corina Marilena, Burlibasa, Mihai, Tudor, Ioana, Totu, Eugenia Eftimie, Di Francesco, Fabrizio, Moraru, Liliana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7961841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33800946
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051102
_version_ 1783665348049895424
author Cristache, Corina Marilena
Burlibasa, Mihai
Tudor, Ioana
Totu, Eugenia Eftimie
Di Francesco, Fabrizio
Moraru, Liliana
author_facet Cristache, Corina Marilena
Burlibasa, Mihai
Tudor, Ioana
Totu, Eugenia Eftimie
Di Francesco, Fabrizio
Moraru, Liliana
author_sort Cristache, Corina Marilena
collection PubMed
description (1) Background: Prosthetically-driven implant positioning is a prerequisite for long-term successful treatment. Transferring the planned implant position information to the clinical setting could be done using either static or dynamic guided techniques. The 3D model of the bone and surrounding structures is obtained via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the patient’s oral condition can be acquired conventionally and then digitalized using a desktop scanner, partially digital workflow (PDW) or digitally with the aid of an intraoral scanner (FDW). The aim of the present randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the accuracy of flapless dental implants insertion in partially edentulous patients with a static surgical template obtained through PDW and FDW. Patient outcome and time spent from data collection to template manufacturing were also compared. (2) Methods: 66 partially edentulous sites (at 49 patients) were randomly assigned to a PDW or FDW for guided implant insertion. Planned and placed implants position were compared by assessing four deviation parameters: 3D error at the entry point, 3D error at the apex, angular deviation, and vertical deviation at entry point. (3) Results: A total of 111 implants were inserted. No implant loss during osseointegration or mechanical and technical complications occurred during the first-year post-implants loading. The mean error at the entry point was 0.44 mm (FDW) and 0.85 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; at implant apex, 1.03 (FDW) and 1.48 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; the mean angular deviation, 2.12° (FDW) and 2.48° (PDW), p = 0.03 and the mean depth deviation, 0.45 mm (FDW) and 0.68 mm (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; (4) Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant differences between the groups, and in the limits of the present study, full digital workflow as well as partially digital workflow are predictable methods for accurate prosthetically driven guided implants insertion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7961841
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79618412021-03-17 Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up Cristache, Corina Marilena Burlibasa, Mihai Tudor, Ioana Totu, Eugenia Eftimie Di Francesco, Fabrizio Moraru, Liliana J Clin Med Article (1) Background: Prosthetically-driven implant positioning is a prerequisite for long-term successful treatment. Transferring the planned implant position information to the clinical setting could be done using either static or dynamic guided techniques. The 3D model of the bone and surrounding structures is obtained via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the patient’s oral condition can be acquired conventionally and then digitalized using a desktop scanner, partially digital workflow (PDW) or digitally with the aid of an intraoral scanner (FDW). The aim of the present randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the accuracy of flapless dental implants insertion in partially edentulous patients with a static surgical template obtained through PDW and FDW. Patient outcome and time spent from data collection to template manufacturing were also compared. (2) Methods: 66 partially edentulous sites (at 49 patients) were randomly assigned to a PDW or FDW for guided implant insertion. Planned and placed implants position were compared by assessing four deviation parameters: 3D error at the entry point, 3D error at the apex, angular deviation, and vertical deviation at entry point. (3) Results: A total of 111 implants were inserted. No implant loss during osseointegration or mechanical and technical complications occurred during the first-year post-implants loading. The mean error at the entry point was 0.44 mm (FDW) and 0.85 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; at implant apex, 1.03 (FDW) and 1.48 (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; the mean angular deviation, 2.12° (FDW) and 2.48° (PDW), p = 0.03 and the mean depth deviation, 0.45 mm (FDW) and 0.68 mm (PDW), p ≤ 0.00; (4) Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant differences between the groups, and in the limits of the present study, full digital workflow as well as partially digital workflow are predictable methods for accurate prosthetically driven guided implants insertion. MDPI 2021-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7961841/ /pubmed/33800946 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051102 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Cristache, Corina Marilena
Burlibasa, Mihai
Tudor, Ioana
Totu, Eugenia Eftimie
Di Francesco, Fabrizio
Moraru, Liliana
Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up
title Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up
title_full Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up
title_fullStr Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up
title_short Accuracy, Labor-Time and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Partially versus Fully Digital Workflow for Flapless Guided Dental Implants Insertion—A Randomized Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up
title_sort accuracy, labor-time and patient-reported outcomes with partially versus fully digital workflow for flapless guided dental implants insertion—a randomized clinical trial with one-year follow-up
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7961841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33800946
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051102
work_keys_str_mv AT cristachecorinamarilena accuracylabortimeandpatientreportedoutcomeswithpartiallyversusfullydigitalworkflowforflaplessguideddentalimplantsinsertionarandomizedclinicaltrialwithoneyearfollowup
AT burlibasamihai accuracylabortimeandpatientreportedoutcomeswithpartiallyversusfullydigitalworkflowforflaplessguideddentalimplantsinsertionarandomizedclinicaltrialwithoneyearfollowup
AT tudorioana accuracylabortimeandpatientreportedoutcomeswithpartiallyversusfullydigitalworkflowforflaplessguideddentalimplantsinsertionarandomizedclinicaltrialwithoneyearfollowup
AT totueugeniaeftimie accuracylabortimeandpatientreportedoutcomeswithpartiallyversusfullydigitalworkflowforflaplessguideddentalimplantsinsertionarandomizedclinicaltrialwithoneyearfollowup
AT difrancescofabrizio accuracylabortimeandpatientreportedoutcomeswithpartiallyversusfullydigitalworkflowforflaplessguideddentalimplantsinsertionarandomizedclinicaltrialwithoneyearfollowup
AT moraruliliana accuracylabortimeandpatientreportedoutcomeswithpartiallyversusfullydigitalworkflowforflaplessguideddentalimplantsinsertionarandomizedclinicaltrialwithoneyearfollowup