Comparative study between bone height changes around implants placed using stereolithographic versus conventional surgical guides

Abstract

Background: Accuracy of implant placement using computer designed surgical guides ascompared to conventional laboratory-processed guides has been investigated by many researchers.However there are no published articles on the effect of placing dental implants using computerdesignedguides on bone height changes around the implants as compared to those placed usingconventional guides.Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare between bone height changes around dentalimplants placed using stereolithographic surgical guides versus conventional guides in completelyedentulous patients rehabilitated with 2-implant supported mandibular overdentures opposed byconventional maxillary complete dentures.Methods: This parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 14 participants (age rangingfrom 50-60) with a mean age of 56.7 years who were selected based on specific inclusion criteria.Conventional maxillary and mandibular compete dentures were constructed for all participants whowere then randomly divided into two equal groups (7 participants in each). All participants receivedtwo implants, 3.5 mm in width and 10 mm in length, in the mandibular inter-foraminal areas(canine region). However implants in Group I (Control) were placed using a conventional surgicalguide while implants in Group II (Experimental Group) were placed using a stereolithographicsurgical guide. After implants’ osseointegration, all participants received ball attachment- retainedmandibular overdentures. Bone height changes around the installed implants were evaluated withthe aid of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Measurements were recorded threetimes at 0 months, 6 months and 12 months after overdenture insertion and the changes werecalculated and statistically analysed. Statistical significance was set at 5 %.Results: All participants attended all follow up visits with no drop outs. None of the implantswas lost presenting a 100% survival rate for both groups. After 6 months post-insertion, the meanbone loss was 0.32mm and 0.31mm for groups I and II respectively. After 12 months post- insertion,mean bone loss reached 0.61mm and 0.49mm for groups I and II respectively. There were nostatistically significant differences between the two groups at both (6 and 12 months) follow-upperiods.Conclusion: Bone height changes around implants placed with stereolithographic surgicalguides versus conventional guides were statistically insignificant with no relevant superiority ofone guide over the other. Both surgical guides provided clinically successful implant treatment witha 100% survival rate for both groups during the one-year follow-up period.