We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 39 (2019), No. 4     12. July 2019
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 39 (2019), No. 4  (12.07.2019)

Online Article, Page e99-e110, doi:10.11607/prd.4145, PubMed:31226187


Online Article: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional And Computer-Assisted Implant Planning and Placement in Partially Edentulous Patients. Part 2: Patient Related Outcome Measures
Sancho-Puchades, Manuel / Alfaro, Federico Hernandez / Naenni, Nadja / Jung, Ronald / Hämmerle, Christoph / Schneider, David
The objective of this study was to compare patient-related outcomes of conventional protocols with computer-assisted implant planning and templateguided implant placement (CAIPP) protocols. Partially edentulous patients (N = 73) were assigned to either surgical planning based on two-dimensional radiographs and freehand implant placement (control; n = 26) or using threedimensional computer-tomography data and implant placement using a toothsupported surgical guide (test groups T1 [n = 24] and T2 [n = 23]). The two test groups differed from each other in digital data acquisition, software functionality, and the guide-manufacturing process. All surgeries were performed as openflap procedures. Patient-related outcome measures were evaluated using questionnaires. Statistical tests were performed to investigate differences between treatment groups. Before treatment, 53% of patients in the control group and 83% of patients in the test groups (T1: 88%, T2: 78%) were satisfied with their group allocation. In the control group, 37% of patients favored CAIPP technology, while only 11% in the test groups would have preferred a conventional procedure. After treatment, 50% of patients in the control and 86% in the test groups (T1: 76%, T2: 94%) were satisfied with their allocation. Twenty-one percent of controlgroup patients favored the CAIPP treatment, while 6% of the test-group patients would have preferred a conventional treatment. The quality-of-life parameters during and after surgery did not show significant differences between groups. More postoperative discomfort was reported after longer and more-complex surgeries including guided bone regeneration and surgeries with two surgical sites. Generally, patients preferred computer-based technologies. No differences in the intra- or postoperative discomfort were observed compared to control protocols. More-extensive surgical procedures negatively affected the intraand postoperative quality of life, irrespective of the treatment group allocation.