Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A 10-year follow-up study on clinical outcomes of dental implant rehabilitation using surgical guide

  • Haoyun Li (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Mi Young Eo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kezia Rachellea Mustakim (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Soung Min Kim (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2024.01.21
  • Accepted : 2024.03.22
  • Published : 2024.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The surgical guide is a static computer-assisted device used for implant surgery planning and guidance. By taking an impression and referring to the patients' three-dimensional computed tomography scan of the desired implant site, a surgical guide can be created. During surgery, the surgical guide aids in achieving the designed implant placement position and direction. We examined and evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of implant surgery using surgical guides. Materials and Methods: This study investigated a total of 15 patients with 32 implants that were placed using surgical guides from 2009 to 2011 with a mean follow-up period extended beyond 10 years. Patient demographics and implant survival rates were recorded. We analyzed marginal bone loss (MBL) by assessing the radiographs acquired at installation, three months after installation, and one month, one, two, and five years after prosthesis delivery. Results: The mean patient age was 57.33 years at implant placement. Of the 32 implants, five implants were placed in the anterior region and 27 implants were in the posterior region. Six implants failed and three of them were replaced, resulting in an 81.25% survival rate. The mean follow-up period was 10 years and nine months. Mean MBL compared to post-installation was significantly higher than at three months after installation, and one month, one, two, and five years after prosthesis delivery. Mean MBL at three months after installation, and one month, one year, and two years were significantly higher compared to the previous visit (P<0.05). However, MBL at five years after prosthesis delivery did not differ significantly compared to at two years. Conclusion: In this study, implant rehabilitation assisted by surgical guides exhibited favorable survival rates. With the limitation of the sample amount in this study, further research and more samples are required to evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness of surgical guides.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT (2022R1F1A1069624) and by the Ministry of Education (2022R1I1A1A01070644).

References

  1. Chen X, Xu L, Wang W, Li X, Sun Y, Politis C. Computer-aided design and manufacturing of surgical templates and their clinical applications: a review. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016;13:853-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2016.1218758 
  2. D'haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:121-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12175 
  3. Vercruyssen M, Hultin M, Van Assche N, Svensson K, Naert I, Quirynen M. Guided surgery: accuracy and efficacy. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:228-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12046 
  4. Kernen F, Kramer J, Wanner L, Wismeijer D, Nelson K, Flugge T. A review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery - data import and visualization, drill guide design and manufacturing. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:251. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01208-1 
  5. Camargos GV, Rangel EF, Rangel KF, Machado AR, Damis LFT, Goncalves LC, et al. Guided implant surgery workflow in edentulous patients: a precise and rapid technique. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:239-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.047 
  6. El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner SFM, Faerber K, Buser R, Buser D. Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:1067-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13520 
  7. Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29 Suppl 16:416-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13346 
  8. D'haese J, Van De Velde T, Komiyama A, Hultin M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy and complications using computer-designed stereolithographic surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by means of dental implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:321-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00275.x 
  9. Shen P, Zhao J, Fan L, Qiu H, Xu W, Wang Y, et al. Accuracy evaluation of computer-designed surgical guide template in oral implantology. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:2189-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.022 
  10. Lee JH, Park JM, Kim SM, Kim MJ, Lee JH, Kim MJ. An assessment of template-guided implant surgery in terms of accuracy and related factors. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:440-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.440 
  11. Scherer U, Stoetzer M, Ruecker M, Gellrich NC, von See C. Template-guided vs. non-guided drilling in site preparation of dental implants. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1339-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1346-7 
  12. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri-implantitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;1(1):CD004970. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004970.pub5 
  13. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0b013e3181676059 
  14. Sodnom-Ish B, Eo MY, Kim MJ, Kim SM. A 10-year survival rate of tapered self-tapping bone-level implants from medically compromised Korean patients at a maxillofacial surgical unit. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2023;45:35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-023-00401-w 
  15. Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108:181-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(12)60145-0 
  16. Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE, McGlumphy EA, Rosenstiel SF. Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:394-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.09.033 
  17. Verhamme LM, Meijer GJ, Boumans T, de Haan AF, Berge SJ, Maal TJ. A clinically relevant accuracy study of computer-planned implant placement in the edentulous maxilla using mucosa-supported surgical templates. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:343-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12112 
  18. Tang CB, Liul SY, Zhou GX, Yu JH, Zhang GD, Bao YD, et al. Nonlinear finite element analysis of three implant- abutment interface designs. Int J Oral Sci 2012;4:101-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2012.35 
  19. Freitas-Junior AC, Rocha EP, Bonfante EA, Almeida EO, Anchieta RB, Martini AP, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of internal and external hexagon platform switched implant-abutment connections: an in vitro laboratory and three-dimensional finite element analysis. Dent Mater 2012;28:e218-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.05.004 
  20. Tripodi D, Vantaggiato G, Scarano A, Perrotti V, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, et al. An in vitro investigation concerning the bacterial leakage at implants with internal hexagon and Morse taper implant-abutment connections. Implant Dent 2012;21:335-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0b013e31825cd472 
  21. Gracis S, Michalakis K, Vigolo P, Vult von Steyern P, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:202-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02556.x 
  22. Frosch L, Mukaddam K, Filippi A, Zitzmann NU, Kuhl S. Comparison of heat generation between guided and conventional implant surgery for single and sequential drilling protocols-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:121-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13398 
  23. Hinckfuss S, Conrad HJ, Lin L, Lunos S, Seong WJ. Effect of surgical guide design and surgeon's experience on the accuracy of implant placement. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:311-23. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-10-00046 
  24. Tatakis DN, Chien HH, Parashis AO. Guided implant surgery risks and their prevention. Periodontol 2000 2019;81:194-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12292 
  25. Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakano T, Yatani H. Marginal bone loss around dental implants inserted with static computer assistance in healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:761-75. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4727