Accuracy of Static Computer-assisted Implant Surgery in Distal Free-end Scenarios
Prospective Clinical Study on the Accuracy of Static Computer-assisted Implant Surgery in Patients Rehabilitated With Distal Free-end Implants. Conventional Versus CAD-CAM Surgical Guides
Technological advances have influenced the approach to implant treatment. One of the fields presently experiencing rapid development is static computer-assisted guided surgery (sCAIS), which allows transfer of the virtual implant planning to the mouth of the patient, based on the use of a surgical guide. In sCAIS there is a deviation between the virtually planned implant position and the actual position of the implant placed during surgery. A recent review analyzed only fully guided implants and recorded a mean coronal horizontal deviation (CHD) of 1.12 mm (standard deviation [SD] = 0.08), a mean apical horizontal deviation (AHD) of 1.41 mm (SD = 0.1), a mean vertical deviation (VD) of 0.12 mm (SD = 0.23), and a mean angular deviation (AD) of 3.58º (SD = 0.2).
The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of CAD-CAM and conventional guides in candidates for distal free-end implant treatment, and to analyze the effects of possible confounding factors inherent to the patient or the surgical technique employed.A prospective, controlled and blinded quasi-experimental study was carried out involving 27 patients with 76 implants distributed into two groups according to the surgical guide manufacturing approach used: conventional (control group [CG]) or CAD-CAM (test group [TG]). The implants were planned virtually with the planning software, and the surgical guides were manufactured. Fully guided implant placement was carried out, and the deviations were measured along with other secondary variables as potential confounding factors.
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Planning of the implants is made in the ideal prosthetic position based on a previous CAD-CAM (computer aided design - computer aided manufacturing) wax-up. sCAIS facilitates correct prosthetic emergence and therefore contributes to secure optimum esthetic and biological outcomes, affording long-term stability of the soft and hard tissues.
These surgical guides can be manufactured using CAD-CAM or conventional technologies in the laboratory, employing drilling machines or mechanical positioners. In the case of the conventional guide manufactured in the laboratory, the technician creates a radiological guide that is then converted into a surgical guide - the whole process being analogic, except for planning of the implants. At present, and with the development of digital workflows, CAD-CAM procedures are used for both the design and manufacture of the surgical guide, using different processes. This simplifies the workflow, which can reduce the costs of smaller rehabilitations.
Clinical studies on accuracy published in the literature are heterogeneous, with differences in the systems used, the surgical technique, the type of surgical guide support or the type of edentulism involved.These data justify further research in humans, focusing on fully sCAIS, in order to reduce heterogeneity. Furthermore, a review of the literature revealed a lack of clinical publications on the accuracy of CAD-CAM surgical guides compared to conventional guides. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of CAD-CAM and conventional guides in candidates for distal free-end implant treatment, and to analyze the effects of possible confounding factors inherent to the patient or the surgical technique employed. Intra- and postoperative complications of the surgical technique were also evaluated, as well as implant success and peri-implant marginal bone loss. Hence, the null hypothesis of the study was the absence of any difference in accuracy between both guides.
A prospective, controlled, examiner- and statistician-blinded, parallel-arm quasi-experimental study was carried out at the University of Valencia (Valencia, Spain). Two groups were established according to the surgical guide design involved: conventional (control group [CG]) or CAD-CAM (test group [TG]).
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Valencia
-
Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 46010
- University of Valencia. Faculty of Medecine and Dentistry. CLINICA ODONTOLOGICA
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Indication of fixed prosthesis over at least two consecutive implants.
- Sufficient residual crest for placing at least two implants 4.1 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length.
- Mature bone and healthy soft tissues.
- Implants placed via fully guided surgery.
- Age > 18 years.
- Good general health.
- Non-smokers or smokers of < 10 cigarettes/day (pipe smokers excluded).
- Oral hygiene index < 3 and bleeding index < 25%.
- Pre- and post- CBCT scan for analysis of accuracy.
- Periapical radiographs at loading and after one year.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Contraindications to implant therapy
- Locations with acute infection.
- Pregnant or nursing women.
- Lack of follow-up.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Other
- Allocation: Non-Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Triple
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Active Comparator: Conventional surgical guide
Implants (Straumann®) placed with an analogic laboratory surgical guide
|
coDiagnostix9® planning software
Other Names:
|
|
Experimental: Computer aided design - computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) surgical guide
Implants (Straumann®) placed with static computer-assisted implant surgery
|
coDiagnostix9® planning software
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Accuracy in implants: vertical, apical and coronal horizontal deviations
Time Frame: 1 week post-operative
|
New CBCT scans were obtained in all patients after implant placement .
The coDiagnostix9® application was used to match the pre- and postoperative CBCT images and to compare the axis positions of the planned and placed implants.
The vertical, apical and coronal horizontal deviations in millimeters (VD, AHD and CHD), were recorded between the long axis of the virtual planned and actual placed implant.
Measured in millimeters
|
1 week post-operative
|
|
Accuracy in implants: angular deviation
Time Frame: 1 weel post-operatiive
|
New CBCT scans were obtained in all patients after implant placement .
The coDiagnostix9® application was used to match the pre- and postoperative CBCT images and to compare the axis positions of the planned and placed implants.
The angular deviation in degrees (AD), was recorded between the long axis of the virtual planned and actual placed implant.
Measured in degrees.
|
1 weel post-operatiive
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Intraoperative complications
Time Frame: Intra-operative
|
Surgical guide fitting, retention, drill access, guide fracture, I
|
Intra-operative
|
|
Postoperative complications
Time Frame: One month after implant placement
|
Infection, bleeding, edema, neurological alterations, pain, swelling
|
One month after implant placement
|
|
Implant success
Time Frame: One year of implant loading
|
Success is defined as no permanent peri implant radiographic translucency, no sign of peri-implant infection with putrid secretion, absence of persistent pain, dysesthesia, and/or foreign-body feeling
|
One year of implant loading
|
|
Peri-implant marginal bone loss
Time Frame: One year of implant loading
|
Radiographic assessment of the marginal bone loss around the implants
|
One year of implant loading
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Director: MIGUEL PEÑARROCHA-DIAGO, Phd, DDS, University of Valencia
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner SFM, Faerber K, Buser R, Buser D. Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Nov;30(11):1067-1075. doi: 10.1111/clr.13520. Epub 2019 Aug 20.
- El Kholy K, Janner SFM, Schimmel M, Buser D. The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Feb;21(1):101-107. doi: 10.1111/cid.12705. Epub 2018 Dec 27.
- Bover-Ramos F, Vina-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Penarrocha-Diago M, Garcia-Mira B. Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-Guided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cadaver, Clinical, and In Vitro Studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 January/February;33(1):101-115. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5556. Epub 2017 Jun 20.
- Balaguer-Marti JC, Canet-Lopez A, Penarrocha-Diago M, Romeo-Rubio M, Penarrocha-Diago M, Garcia-Mira B. Influence of Splint Support on the Precision of Static Totally Guided Dental Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023 Jan-Feb;38(1):157-168. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9796.
- Chen X, Yang Z, Wang Y, Fu G. Fixation Pins Increase the Accuracy of Implant Surgery in Free-End Models: An In Vitro Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 May;81(5):593-601. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.12.017. Epub 2023 Jan 28.
- Kessler A, Le V, Folwaczny M. Influence of the tooth position, guided sleeve height, supporting length, manufacturing methods, and resin E-modulus on the in vitro accuracy of surgical implant guides in a free-end situation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Sep;32(9):1097-1104. doi: 10.1111/clr.13804. Epub 2021 Jul 17.
- Khorsandi D, Fahimipour A, Abasian P, Saber SS, Seyedi M, Ghanavati S, Ahmad A, De Stephanis AA, Taghavinezhaddilami F, Leonova A, Mohammadinejad R, Shabani M, Mazzolai B, Mattoli V, Tay FR, Makvandi P. 3D and 4D printing in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery: Printing techniques, materials, and applications. Acta Biomater. 2021 Mar 1;122:26-49. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.12.044. Epub 2020 Dec 26.
- Le V, Kessler A, Folwaczny M. Influence of DLP and SLA printer technology on the accuracy of surgical guides for implant dentistry in free-end situations. Int J Comput Dent. 2023 Sep 26;26(3):217-226. doi: 10.3290/j.ijcd.b3774115.
- Matta RE, Bergauer B, Adler W, Wichmann M, Nickenig HJ. The impact of the fabrication method on the three-dimensional accuracy of an implant surgery template. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Jun;45(6):804-808. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.02.015. Epub 2017 Feb 20.
- Putra RH, Yoda N, Astuti ER, Sasaki K. The accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery in partially edentulous patients and possible influencing factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2022 Jan 11;66(1):29-39. doi: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00184. Epub 2021 Jan 26.
- Berta GM, Luigi C, Miguel PD, Carlos BJ. Prospective Clinical Study on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in Patients With Distal Free-End Implants. Conventional Versus CAD-CAM Surgical Guides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Mar;36(3):314-324. doi: 10.1111/clr.14384. Epub 2024 Nov 23.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimated)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- H20190402125847
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Dental Implant
-
NCT05712031CompletedDental Implant | Short Dental Implant
-
NCT06286579Not yet recruitingDental Implant | Dental Implant-Abutment Design
-
NCT05843981Not yet recruitingDental Implant | Dental Implant-Abutment Design
-
NCT06926101CompletedDental Implant | Edentulism | Dental Implant Therapy
-
NCT07589140Not yet recruitingDental Implant | Immediate Dental Implant Placement | Bone Grafting
-
NCT06099834CompletedDental Implant Failed | Osseointegration Failure of Dental Implant
-
NCT02864862CompletedDental Implant | Soft Tissue Augmentation | Immediate Dental Implant
-
NCT05016258RecruitingDental Implant | Dental Restoration | Dentistry | Implant-supported Fixed Prosthesis
-
NCT02134743CompletedDental Implant Failed | Pre-osseointegration Failure of Dental Implant
-
NCT07288606Active, not recruitingDental Implant | Implant Stability
Clinical Trials on Static computer-assisted guided surgery with analogic guide
-
NCT07577245Not yet recruitingPartial Edentulism Class II
-
NCT06819995RecruitingDental Implant | Guided Surgery Accuracy
-
NCT05512845CompletedDental Implants | Surgery, Computer-Assisted
-
NCT07575022CompletedEndoscopic Sinus Surgery | Navigation | Computer Assisted | Sinonasal Polyposis
-
NCT04344808UnknownDental Implants | Surgery, Computer-Assisted
-
NCT06887582Active, not recruitingAlveolar Bone Loss | Maxillary Sinus Disease