A randomized, controlled clinical trial of digitally planned static guided implant placement with 2 years of follow-up

Abstract

A randomized clinical trial was conducted in 2018-2019 to compare all three known static guided surgery protocols (pilot, partial, full) with each other and with freehand surgery in terms of accuracy as a short-term outcome and followed up for two years. A total of 207 implants of the same brand and type (ABT Multi-NeO) were placed in 101 partially edentulous volunteers in need of implantation. All cases were digitally planned, and the comparison of the planned and actual implant positions was performed using medical image analysis software. Angular deviation, coronal deviation, apical deviation, and volume overlap were analyzed after the implantation. Complications, bone reabsorption, periodontological indices, and oral health-related quality of life were the key follow-up outcomes. The partially and fully guided approaches significantly improved the accuracy of dental implant surgery as compared to freehand surgery. Three volunteers dropped out during the follow-up. No complications (periodontological or otherwise) were observed, bone reabsorption was negligible, and the patients’ self-reported oral health-related quality of life returned to normal within 1 year. Digitally planned static guided surgery significantly improves the accuracy of implant placement as compared to the freehand approach. All surgical protocols resulted in complication-free healing. No significant difference was found between the study arms in any of the follow-up parameters. The follow-up period has been extended to 5 years.