Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students : A randomized controlled trial. / Søndergaard, Kasper; Hosseini, Mandana; Jensen, Simon Storgård; Spin-Neto, Rubens; Gotfredsen, Klaus.
I: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Bind 32, Nr. 9, 2021, s. 1072-1084.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students
T2 - A randomized controlled trial
AU - Søndergaard, Kasper
AU - Hosseini, Mandana
AU - Jensen, Simon Storgård
AU - Spin-Neto, Rubens
AU - Gotfredsen, Klaus
N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare fully guided with conventionally guided implant surgery performed by dental students in terms of deviation of actual implant position from an ideal implant position.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients in need of 26 straightforward implant-supported single crowns were randomly allocated to a fully guided (FG, n=14) or a conventionally guided (CG, n=12) implant surgery. In the preoperative CBCTs, 3 experienced investigators placed a virtual implant in the ideal position, twice, allowing deviational analysis in the facio-lingual (coronal) and mesio-distal (sagittal) planes for 7 parameters. Facio-lingual crestal deviation, facio-lingual apical deviation, facio-lingual angular deviation, mesio-distal crestal deviation, mesio-distal apical deviation, mesio-distal angular deviation and vertical deviation between the ideal, virtually placed position and actual implant position for the FG- and CG-groups were compared statistically (p<0.05) RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio-lingual apical deviation (p= 0.047) and for the facio-lingual angular deviation (p= 0.019), where the CG-group deviated more from the ideal position than the FG-group. The 5 other examined variables did not show any significant differences and none of the implants in the FG-group and CG-group were placed in conflict with the clinical guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported no difference in 5 out of 7 deviational parameters concerning actual implant position in relation to ideal implant position between a FG and CG implant placement protocol performed by dental students. Facio-lingual angular deviation and apical deviation were lower, when a FG protocol was followed. All implants were positioned according to clinical guidelines.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare fully guided with conventionally guided implant surgery performed by dental students in terms of deviation of actual implant position from an ideal implant position.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients in need of 26 straightforward implant-supported single crowns were randomly allocated to a fully guided (FG, n=14) or a conventionally guided (CG, n=12) implant surgery. In the preoperative CBCTs, 3 experienced investigators placed a virtual implant in the ideal position, twice, allowing deviational analysis in the facio-lingual (coronal) and mesio-distal (sagittal) planes for 7 parameters. Facio-lingual crestal deviation, facio-lingual apical deviation, facio-lingual angular deviation, mesio-distal crestal deviation, mesio-distal apical deviation, mesio-distal angular deviation and vertical deviation between the ideal, virtually placed position and actual implant position for the FG- and CG-groups were compared statistically (p<0.05) RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio-lingual apical deviation (p= 0.047) and for the facio-lingual angular deviation (p= 0.019), where the CG-group deviated more from the ideal position than the FG-group. The 5 other examined variables did not show any significant differences and none of the implants in the FG-group and CG-group were placed in conflict with the clinical guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported no difference in 5 out of 7 deviational parameters concerning actual implant position in relation to ideal implant position between a FG and CG implant placement protocol performed by dental students. Facio-lingual angular deviation and apical deviation were lower, when a FG protocol was followed. All implants were positioned according to clinical guidelines.
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13802
DO - 10.1111/clr.13802
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34166539
VL - 32
SP - 1072
EP - 1084
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
SN - 0905-7161
IS - 9
ER -
ID: 273012551