Dataset Information

Clinical and radiological outcomes of novel digital workflow and dynamic navigation for single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone: 1-year prospective case series.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate clinical, radiological performance of novel digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation to streamline in one-visit single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone.

Material and methods

Consecutive patients requiring one single-implant in aesthetic zone of both jaws were treated between May and September 2017. Primary outcomes were implant and prosthetic success rates, surgical and prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), final pink aesthetic score (PES-f), and implant stability quotient (ISQ-f). Secondary outcomes were ISQ-0 and PES-0 at implant positioning and PES-p at definitive prosthesis placement. Potential effect of jaw (maxilla vs mandible), biotype (thin vs thick), type of incision (flap vs flapless), and implant site (healed vs. post-extractive) on the primary outcomes (MBL, PES-f, and ISQ-f) was evaluated through a multivariable analysis.

Results

Fifty-two implants were placed (follow-up 18.6, 15-20 months). One post-extractive implant failed. No other surgical, biological complications occurred, accounting for 98.10% cumulative success rate (CSR). No definitive prostheses failed. Mean MBL was -0.63 ± 0.25 mm (-1.69 to -0.06). PES-f was 12.34 ± 1.41 (9-14). ISQ-f was 78.1 ± 3.2 (70-84). Age had significantly negative effect on MBL and PES-f (p = .0058 and p = .0052). No other variables significantly affected primary outcomes.

Conclusions

Within study limitations, investigated digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation was reliable for single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone in one visit. No statistically significant difference was found for MBL, PES-f, and ISQ-f, considering type of incision (flap vs. flapless), implant site (healed vs post-extractive), jaw (maxilla vs. mandible), and biotype (thick vs. thin). Live-tracked dynamic navigation may have contributed to improve operator clinical performance regardless of implant site characteristics. Further investigations are needed to confirm positive outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Pozzi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292693 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test).Materials and methodsEighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, and a digital implant planning was performed for all. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a CAD-CAM provisional crown were prepared prior to surgery; implants were placed using a s-CAIS guide allowing immediate restoration after surgery. In the control group, the implant was placed free-handed using a conventional surgical guide, and a custom-made zirconia abutment to support a stratified provisional crown was placed 10 days thereafter, based on a conventional impression. Implant accuracy (relative to the planning), the provisional restoration outcomes, as well as PROMs were assessed.ResultsThe implant positioning showed higher accuracy with the s-CAIS surgical guide compared to free-handed surgery (angular deviation (AD): 2.41 ± 1.27° vs. 6.26 ± 3.98°, p < 0.014; entry point deviation (CGD): 0.65 ± 0.37 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.83 mm, p < 0.059; apical deviation (GAD): 1.36 ± 0.53 mm vs. 2.42 ± 1.02 mm, p < 0.014). The occlusion and interproximal contacts showed similar results for the two workflows (p = 0.7 and p = 0.69, respectively). The PROMs results were similar in both groups except for impression taking with intra-oral scanning preferred over conventional impressions (p = 0.014).ConclusionsBoth workflows allowed implant placement and immediate/early restoration and displayed similar clinical and esthetic outcomes. The fully digital workflow was associated with a more accurate implant position relative to planning.Clinical relevanceOur results show that both conventional and digital workflow are predictive and provide similar clinical outcomes, with extra precision provided by digitalisation.

Project description:Aim:To compare implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of immediately loaded single implants inserted by using ultrasonic implant site preparation (UISP) (test) and conventional rotary instrumentation (control). Methods:Two single implants were inserted for each patient: after randomization, test site was prepared by using an ultrasonic device (Piezosurgery Touch, Mectron, Italy) and control site was prepared by using the drills of the selected implant system (Premium AZT, Sweden & Martina, Italy), until reaching a final diameter of 3?mm in both groups. Identical implants (3.8x11.5?mm) were inserted in all sites at crestal level. Impressions were taken and screwed resin single crowns with platform-switched provisional abutments were delivered with 48 hours. Periapical radiographs were taken at provisional crown insertion (T0), 6 months (T1) and one year (T2) after prosthetic loading to measure MBL. All data were tested for normality and subsequently analyzed by paired samples t-test and forward multiple linear regression. Results:Forty-eight patients were treated in six centers with the insertion of ninety-six implants (48 test; 48 control). Four implants in four patients failed within the first six months of healing (two in test group; two in control group; no difference between groups). Forty patients (age 60.1±10.7 years; 22 female, 18 male) were included in the final analysis. Mean MBL after six months of loading was 1.39±1.03?mm in the test group and 1.42±1.16?mm in the control group (p>0.05) and after one year was 1.92±1.14?mm and 2.14±1.55?mm in test and control, respectively (p>0.05). Conclusions:No differences in survival rate and MBL were demonstrated between UISP and conventional site preparation with rotary instruments in immediately loaded dental implants: UISP, with its characteristics of enhanced surgical control and safety in proximity of delicate structures, may be used as a reliable alternative to the traditional drilling systems.