Premium
Implant‐ and patient‐centred outcomes of guided surgery, a 1‐year follow‐up: An RCT comparing guided surgery with conventional implant placement
Author(s) -
Vercruyssen Marjolein,
Wiele Gerlinde,
Teughels Wim,
Naert Ignace,
Jacobs Reinhilde,
Quirynen Marc
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.12305
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , implant , surgery , dentistry
Aim To assess, in a randomized study, the implant (clinical and radiological) and patient outcomes of guided implant placement at 1‐year follow‐up, compared to conventional implant treatment. Material and Methods A total of 314 were placed in 59 patients, randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups. Radiographic and clinical parameters were recorded at the time of implant placement, prosthesis instalment (baseline) and at 1‐year follow‐up. Patient satisfaction was measured with the oral health‐related quality of life instrument ( OHIP ‐49). Results No implants were lost. The mean marginal bone loss after the first year of loading was 0.04 mm ( SD 0.34) for the guided surgery and 0.01 mm ( SD 0.38) for the control groups. In the guided surgery groups, the mean number of surfaces with BOP and plaque at 1‐year follow‐up was 1.41 ( SD 1.25) and 1.10 ( SD 1.22), for the control groups this was, respectively, 1.37 ( SD 1.25) and 1.77 ( SD 1.64). The mean pocket probing depth was 2.81 mm ( SD 1.1) for the guided, and 2.50 mm ( SD 0.94) for the control groups. For all treatment groups, a significant improvement in quality of life was observed at 1‐year follow‐up (p ≤ 0.01), no differences between groups were observed. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, no difference could be found at 1‐year follow‐up between the implant and patient outcome variables of guided or conventional implant treatment.