A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template.

AIM

To assess the accuracy of guided surgery (mucosa and bone-supported) compared to mental navigation or the use of a surgical template, in fully edentulous jaws, in a randomized controlled study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-nine patients (72 jaws), requiring four to six implants (maxilla or mandible), were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to one of the following treatment groups; guidance via Materialise Universal(®)/mucosa, Materialise Universal(®)/bone, Facilitate™/mucosa, Facilitate™/bone, or mental navigation or a pilot-drill template. The precision was assessed by matching the planning computed tomography (CT) with a post-operative cone beam CT.

RESULTS

A significant lower mean deviation at the entry point (1.4 mm, range: 0.3-3.7), at the apex (1.6 mm, range: 0.2-3.7) and angular deviation (3.0°, range: 0.2-16°) was observed for the guiding systems when compared to mental navigation (2.7 mm, range: 0.3-8.3; 2.9 mm, range: 0.5-7.4 and 9.9°, range: 1.5-27.8) and to the surgical template group (3.0 mm, range: 0.6-6.6; 3.4 mm, range: 0.3-7.5 and 8.4°, range: 0.6-21.3°). Differences between bone and mucosa support or type of guidance were negligible. Jaw and implant location (posterior-anterior, left-right), however, had a significant influence on the accuracy when guided.

CONCLUSION

Based on these findings, guided implant placement appears to offer clear accuracy benefits.