"Computer-Guided vs Freehand Zygomatic Implant Placement
- Conditions
- Dental ImplantsMaxillary Diseases
- Registration Number
- NCT06925438
- Lead Sponsor
- Al-Azhar University
- Brief Summary
This randomized trial compares computer-guided versus free-hand zygomatic implant placement in patients with atrophic maxillae or maxillary defects. Participants receive either 3D-navigated implants (using stereolithographic guides) or conventional free-hand placement. Primary outcomes measure accuracy through apical angular deviation (°), apical/coronal linear deviations (mm) relative to MSP/FHP/CP planes (CT-based), while secondary outcomes assess implant stability (ISQ) and complications (sinusitis/infection) over 6 months. The study evaluates whether guided surgery improves precision in complex maxillary rehabilitation.
- Detailed Description
"This study was retrospectively registered due to initial lack of awareness of prospective registration requirements. All procedures followed ethical guidelines (Approval #880/62), and results are reported transparently."
Study Design
A single-center, randomized controlled trial conducted at Al-Azhar University, comparing computer-guided versus free-hand zygomatic implant placement. Participants are allocated 1:1 to:
Group A (Free-hand): Implants placed using ZAGA classification with conventional surgical techniques.
Group B (Guided): Implants placed via 3D-printed bone-supported surgical templates (DICOM-based planning).
Interventions
Both Groups:
Pre-op: CT scans for zygomatic bone assessment.
Anesthesia: General anesthesia with local infiltration for hemostasis.
Surgical Protocol: Full-thickness flap, implant placement , two-stage healing.
Group B-Specific Steps:
Digital implant path planning (entrance/exit points).
Stereolithographic guide fabrication with metal sleeves.
Guide fixation with monocortical screws during surgery.
Rationale Zygomatic implants require high precision due to anatomical complexity. While free-hand placement depends on surgeon skill, computer guidance may reduce errors. This trial evaluates whether guided surgery improves accuracy (angular deviation) and reduces complications (sinusitis, infection).
Methodological Rigor Randomization: Block randomization via SPSS.
Blinding: Radiographic assessors blinded to group allocation.
Sample Size: 16 implants (8/group), powered to detect 3.73° mean angular deviation difference (α=0.05, β=0.10; based on Grecchi et al. 2022).
Ethical Compliance Approved by Al-Azhar University (Ref: 880/62).
Consent forms documented risks/benefits (e.g., sinus perforation, infection).
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 8
- Patients aged ≥40 years
- Atrophic maxillary ridge (Cawood & Howell Class IV-VI)
- Maxillary defects due to trauma, tumor resection, or congenital conditions
- Acute maxillary sinusitis
- Uncontrolled systemic diseases affecting osseointegration
- Pathological lesions in maxilla/zygoma
- Heavy smoking (>20 cigarettes/day)
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Angular deviation of zygomatic implants Measured immediately post-operatively (Day 0) Difference in degrees between planned (virtual) and actual post-operative implant position, measured at the apical point using superimposed CT scans
Apical linear deviation of zygomatic implants Measured immediately post-operatively (Day 0) Difference in millimeters between planned (virtual) and actual post-operative implant position at the apical point, measured using superimposed CT scans along three planes midsagittal plane (MSP) - Frankfort horizontal plane (FHP) - coronal plane (CP)
Coronal linear deviation of zygomatic implants Measured immediately post-operatively (Day 0) Difference in millimeters between planned and actual implant position at the coronal point (implant neck), measured using superimposed CT scans along three planes midsagittal plane (MSP) - Frankfort horizontal plane (FHP) - coronal plane (CP)
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Implant stability quotient (ISQ) Immediately post-op and at 6 months Primary and secondary stability measured using Osstell Mentor device at implant placement and 6-month follow-up"
Postoperative complication rates Assessed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-op Incidence of sinusitis, infection, soft tissue dehiscence, and oroantral communication assessed clinically
Related Research Topics
Explore scientific publications, clinical data analysis, treatment approaches, and expert-compiled information related to the mechanisms and outcomes of this trial. Click any topic for comprehensive research insights.
Trial Locations
- Locations (2)
Faculty of Dental Medicine - Boys, Al-Azhar University
🇪🇬Cairo, Cairo Governorate, Egypt
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine - Boys, Al-Azhar University
🇪🇬Cairo, Cairo Governorate, Egypt
Faculty of Dental Medicine - Boys, Al-Azhar University🇪🇬Cairo, Cairo Governorate, Egypt