Accuracy of Half-guided Implant Placement With Machine-driven or Manual Insertion: a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Study
Overview
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Partial-edentulism
- Sponsor
- Semmelweis University
- Enrollment
- 40
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Global apical implant position deviation
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 5 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
The aim of the present prospective randomized controlled study is to compare the accuracy of implant placement performed either with a surgical motor or a torque wrench as part of a half-guided surgical protocol after maxillary sinus floor augmentation.
Detailed Description
Implant insertion with half-guided surgical protocol was utilized by surgical motor (machine-driven group) or torque wrench (manual group) in the maxilla. Forty patients were randomly divided in two study groups; 20 implants were inserted with a surgical motor and 20 implants with a torque wrench. After the healing period, accuracy comparison method between planned and actual implant positions was performed based on digital intraoral scan. Coronal, apical and angular deviation parameters, insertion time and maximum insertion torque was evaluated.
Investigators
Balint Molnar
Dr. Balint Molnar DMD, PhD, associate professor
Semmelweis University
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •at least one edentulous maxillary premolar or molar site treated successfully by sinus floor elevation with a xenogenic bone substitute (cerabone, botiss biomaterials, Zossen, Germany) confirmed by preoperative cone-beam computed tomography
- •full- mouth plaque and bleeding scores (FMPS and FMBS) \<20%
- •good patient compliance (including willingness to participate in the follow-up procedures)
- •signed informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
- •clinically relevant diseases (e.g.: diabetes, rheumatism, cancer)
- •systemic steroid or bisphosphonate use
- •acute or chronic inflammatory processes
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Global apical implant position deviation
Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement
Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm
Horizontal coronal implant position deviation
Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement
Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm
Global coronal implant position deviation
Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement
Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm
Horizontal apical implant position deviation
Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement
Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm
Angular implant position deviation
Time Frame: 3 months after implant placement
Measurement: comparison of planned and actual implant position in a virtual model. Tool: Linear measurement with Amira 5.4.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Unit: mm
Secondary Outcomes
- Implant insertion torque(During implant insertion)
- Duration of implant insertion(During implant insertion)