Clinical and radiological outcomes of novel digital workflow and dynamic navigation for single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone: 1-year prospective case series.
Dynamic navigation
dental implant
digital workflow
guided surgery
immediate loading
Journal
Clinical oral implants research
ISSN: 1600-0501
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Implants Res
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 9105713
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
revised:
04
08
2021
received:
18
01
2021
accepted:
17
08
2021
pubmed:
2
9
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
1
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate clinical, radiological performance of novel digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation to streamline in one-visit single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone. Consecutive patients requiring one single-implant in aesthetic zone of both jaws were treated between May and September 2017. Primary outcomes were implant and prosthetic success rates, surgical and prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), final pink aesthetic score (PES-f), and implant stability quotient (ISQ-f). Secondary outcomes were ISQ-0 and PES-0 at implant positioning and PES-p at definitive prosthesis placement. Potential effect of jaw (maxilla vs mandible), biotype (thin vs thick), type of incision (flap vs flapless), and implant site (healed vs. post-extractive) on the primary outcomes (MBL, PES-f, and ISQ-f) was evaluated through a multivariable analysis. Fifty-two implants were placed (follow-up 18.6, 15-20 months). One post-extractive implant failed. No other surgical, biological complications occurred, accounting for 98.10% cumulative success rate (CSR). No definitive prostheses failed. Mean MBL was -0.63 ± 0.25 mm (-1.69 to -0.06). PES-f was 12.34 ± 1.41 (9-14). ISQ-f was 78.1 ± 3.2 (70-84). Age had significantly negative effect on MBL and PES-f (p = .0058 and p = .0052). No other variables significantly affected primary outcomes. Within study limitations, investigated digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation was reliable for single-implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone in one visit. No statistically significant difference was found for MBL, PES-f, and ISQ-f, considering type of incision (flap vs. flapless), implant site (healed vs post-extractive), jaw (maxilla vs. mandible), and biotype (thick vs. thin). Live-tracked dynamic navigation may have contributed to improve operator clinical performance regardless of implant site characteristics. Further investigations are needed to confirm positive outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34467555
doi: 10.1111/clr.13839
pmc: PMC9292693
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1397-1410Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jan-Feb;29(1):152-61
pubmed: 24451866
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Dec;16(6):639-44
pubmed: 16307569
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Sep;7(3):261-7
pubmed: 9151590
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Apr;21(2):226-231
pubmed: 30779294
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2008 Mar;36(2):109-16
pubmed: 18280173
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 21;10(9):
pubmed: 33919257
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:73-4
pubmed: 15635947
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jun;24(6):630-4
pubmed: 22413853
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7 Suppl 1:S111-20
pubmed: 16137096
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Jun;20(6):566-70
pubmed: 19302238
J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45(6):721-732
pubmed: 29608793
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Sep 19;32(1):92-99
pubmed: 27643585
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 May/Jun;40(3):427-435
pubmed: 32233198
Br Dent J. 2006 Jul 22;201(2):77-89
pubmed: 16865133
Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jul;21(6):2133-2142
pubmed: 27864641
J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Feb;38(2):186-94
pubmed: 21087294
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007 Mar;9(1):34-45
pubmed: 17362495
J Prosthodont Res. 2021 Feb 24;65(1):119-124
pubmed: 32938863
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Apr 1;21(4):455-8
pubmed: 20074247
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Dec 5;34(1):205–213
pubmed: 30521660
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Feb;31(2):181-191
pubmed: 31680339
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17(5):844-53
pubmed: 24373386
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e427-33
pubmed: 25346154
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jun;30(6):505-514
pubmed: 31060099
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jun;26(6):725-6
pubmed: 24665872
J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Oct;35(10):906-13
pubmed: 18713258
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;9 Suppl 1:S135-53
pubmed: 27314119
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2018 Mar;39(3):e9-e12
pubmed: 29493252
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Mar-Apr;30(2):330-7
pubmed: 25830393
J Prosthodont Res. 2011 Jul;55(3):127-36
pubmed: 21596648
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015 Spring;8(1):51-63
pubmed: 25738179
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Nov/Dec;31(6):1327-1340
pubmed: 27861657
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006 Jun;26(3):215-21
pubmed: 16836163
J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Oct;62(4):514-517
pubmed: 29655527
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996 Nov-Dec;11(6):806-10
pubmed: 8990645
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Mar;31(3):255-263
pubmed: 31829457
Periodontol 2000. 2018 Jun;77(1):197-212
pubmed: 29478284
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Jan/Feb;35(1):167-177
pubmed: 31923299
Ann Periodontol. 1997 Mar;2(1):291-8
pubmed: 9151562
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Feb;74(2):269-77
pubmed: 26452429
Surg Innov. 2010 Sep;17(3):217-25
pubmed: 20513723
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Apr;32(4):383-393
pubmed: 33540465
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Dec;32(12):1397-1410
pubmed: 34467555
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Oct;30(10):1005-1015
pubmed: 31330566
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131