Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Objectives: The aim of this randomized control trial was to compare immediate restoration procedure with a one abutment one-time technique using a conventional versus full digital workflow. Surgical accuracy, provisional fit and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of.
Objectives: The aim of this randomized control trial was to compare immediate restoration procedure with a one abutment one-time technique using a conventional versus full digital workflow. Surgical accuracy, provisional fit and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of.
Material and method: Sites with single edentulous spaces and neighboring natural teeth were randomized into static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) or freehand placement implant surgery groups. In both groups, digital implant planning was performed using data from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and surfaces scans. In the s-CAIS group, a surgical guide was produced and used for fully guided implant surgery, while in the freehand group, the implants were placed in a freehand manner. the deviations in angles, shoulders and apexes between planned and actual implant positions were measured based on postoperative optic impressions. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a provisional restoration were immediately placed using a full digital workflow whereas in the control group, a physical impression was taken, and the abutment and crown were placed 10 days post-surgery. Loading outcomes (interproximal contact, occlusal contact, white esthetic score (WES)) were assessed as the PROMs.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| guided surgery | Other | test group, using a full digital workflow procedure |
|
| conventional technic | Other | free- hand technic to place implant |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| guided surgery | Procedure | placement of implant with local anesthesia using full guided surgery protocol versus free- hande one |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment of the surgical accuracy | The STL files (stereolithography files) were superimposed with pre-operative CBCT (Cone beam computed tomography) images using automated surface best fit matching with the iterative closest point algorithm in the treatment evaluation mode, coDiagnostiX® software version 9.7 (Dental Wings Inc). The mean deviations at the implant shoulder and apex between the planned and actual implant positions were measured in millimeters (mm), as well as the divergence of the implant axis in degrees. All measurements were performed by a single dentist, who conducted the virtual implant planning in all cases. | The day of the surgery |
| Clinical fit of the provisional restoration measurements | The measurements were based on the adaptation of the provisional crown. Interproximal contacts were evaluated according to the criteria described by Syrek (Syrek et al., 2010). Dental floss (Johnson & Johnson Reach®, Waxed dentotape, New Brunswick, NJ, USA) was used to check the interproximal contact. A score from 1 to 4 was given to the fitting criteria (the higher the score, the better the adaptation). | 10 days post surgery |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| WES | To evaluate the esthetic outcomes of the provisional crown, the White Esthetic Score (WES) was reported. The highest WES score was 10, which represented a close match with the clinical single-tooth crown present at the contralateral natural tooth or neighboring teeth. The WES was evaluated by a blinded prosthodontic, based on photography. | 10 days post surgery |
Not provided
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
In case of systemic infection, the evaluation will be based on medical anamneses and, if necessary, will be referred to relevant medical tests.
Local exclusion criteria
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHU de Liège - Service de Médecine Dentaire | Liège | 4000 | Belgium |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D025321 | Surgery, Computer-Assisted |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013514 | Surgical Procedures, Operative |
Not provided
Not provided
The present study was designed as a randomized controlled trial comparing immediate restoration procedure in the esthetic zone with a one abutment one-time technique and using a conventional (control group) versus full digital workflow (test group),
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| conventionnel implant placement | Procedure | placement of dental implant with conventionnal freehand technic |
|
| Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) | PROMs were obtained using a VAS form immediately after the immediate restoration of the implant. Five questions were used:
| 10 days post surgery |