Journal
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 12, Pages 1154-1160Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12305
Keywords
guided surgery; implant-centred outcome; patient-centred outcome
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Aim: To assess, in a randomized study, the implant (clinical and radiological) and patient outcomes of guided implant placement at 1-year follow-up, compared to conventional implant treatment. Material and Methods: A total of 314 were placed in 59 patients, randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups. Radiographic and clinical parameters were recorded at the time of implant placement, prosthesis instalment (baseline) and at 1-year follow-up. Patient satisfaction was measured with the oral health-related quality of life instrument (OHIP-49). Results: No implants were lost. The mean marginal bone loss after the first year of loading was 0.04 mm (SD 0.34) for the guided surgery and 0.01 mm (SD 0.38) for the control groups. In the guided surgery groups, the mean number of surfaces with BOP and plaque at 1-year follow-up was 1.41 (SD 1.25) and 1.10 (SD 1.22), for the control groups this was, respectively, 1.37 (SD 1.25) and 1.77 (SD 1.64). The mean pocket probing depth was 2.81 mm (SD 1.1) for the guided, and 2.50 mm (SD 0.94) for the control groups. For all treatment groups, a significant improvement in quality of life was observed at 1-year follow-up (p <= 0.01), no differences between groups were observed. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, no difference could be found at 1-year follow-up between the implant and patient outcome variables of guided or conventional implant treatment.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available