Comparing digital and traditional guides in first molar implant surgery: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: There are few studies on the differences in clinical outcomes with implant guides made by different methods in cases with a single tooth loss and adjacent tooth support OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of digital and traditional implant guides in patients whose first molars are absent and who are undergoing implant restoration. METHODS: This study included 42 patients with first molars missing who were randomly divided into two groups: the digital group ([Formula: see text] 21) and the control group ([Formula: see text] 21). A CAD/CAM digital implant guide was used in the digital group, whereas a traditional impression was used in the control group. Then, the labor time, the intraoral fit of the implant guide, and the deviation of the screw access channel position were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The impression time and implant surgery time in the digital group were less than in the traditional group. The intraoral first fit of the guide in the digital group was higher than in the control group ([Formula: see text] 0.05). The one-time satisfaction rate of the digital group was 100%, while five cases in the control group needed to be redone. In the digital group, there was no significant difference in the deviation of the screw access channel position between implants on the left and right sides. In the control group, the deviation of the screw access channel position on the right side was significantly lower than on the left side. Overall, the deviation of the screw access channel position was significantly lower in the digital group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In a first molar implant, the digital implant guide can effectively reduce the clinical operative time and the screw access deviation and improve efficiency. The clinical results with the digital guide provide a basis for its use in implant therapy for single missing teeth.