title: Why guided when freehand is easier, quicker, and less costly?
abstract: Computer-assisted implant planning and subsequent production of a surgical template based on this plan has gained attention because it provides restoratively driven esthetics, patient comfort, satisfaction, and the option of flapless surgery and immediate restoration. However, it adds expense and requires more time. Another significant but not so apparent advantage may be improved survival and success over freehand techniques in types III and IV bone. This retrospective analysis was undertaken to examine that possibility. It reports 1-year outcome for 80 implants in 27 consecutively presenting patients treated over a 7-year period using computer-assisted techniques across all bone qualities in commonly encountered treatment indications in private practice. Implants were placed to support single teeth, small bridges, and complete arch restorations in exposed or immediately restored applications, based on primary stability as determined by insertion torque, resonance frequency analysis, and Periotest. For the 80 implants supporting 35 restorations, the median observation period is 2.66 years; 73 implants supporting prostheses in 22 patients had readable radiographs at 1 year. There was a 1-year overall implant survival and a success rate of 100%. Radiographic analysis demonstrated the change in bone level from the platform at 1-year is less than 2 mm. Intra-operative median measurements of primary stability were insertion torque, 40 Ncm; resonance frequency, 76 ISQ; and Periotest, -3. All intra-operative measurements were consistent for acceptable primary stability regardless of bone density. Restoratively driven diagnosis and precision planning and initial fit were possible with computer-assisted techniques resulting in the achievement of high primary stability, even in areas of less dense bone. The ability to plan implant position, drill sequence, and implant design on the basis of predetermined bone density gives the practitioner enhanced pretreatment information which can lead to improved outcome.
authors.affiliation: 1  Dental Implants of Boston, Wellesley Hills, Mass.
authors.forename: Paul A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Schnitman
authors.forename: Chie
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Hayashi
authors.forename: Rita K
authors.initials: RK
authors.lastname: Han
mesh_terms: D000539:Alveolar Process / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D015519:Bone Density / Q000502:physiology; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D015921:Dental Implants / Q000191:economics; D019250:Dental Implants, Single-Tooth / Q000191:economics; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003774:Dental Plaque Index; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported / Q000191:economics; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D057893:Immediate Dental Implant Loading / Q000191:economics; D016348:Osseointegration / Q000502:physiology; D010347:Patient Care Planning; D010512:Periodontal Index; D011859:Radiography; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D025321:Surgery, Computer-Assisted / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D016019:Survival Analysis; D019415:Torque; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014732:Vibration
chemical_list: D015921:Dental Implants
keywords: bone density; clinical research; guided; immediate load; implant surgery; osseointegration; success