We have located links that may give you full text access.
A randomized controlled trial on the efficiency of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully-guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients.
Clinical Oral Implants Research 2018 December 23
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of free-handed (FH), pilot-drill guided (PG) and fully-guided (FG) implant surgery by means of the Apical Global Deviation (AGD) in relation to the additional financial cost and time spent.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three partially edentulous patients in need of ≥2 implants in the posterior maxilla were randomly allocated to one of the following treatment groups: FH, PG, FG. Eleven patients (mean age 57; 8 females; altogether 26 implants) were treated by FH surgery, 11 (mean age 53; 7 females; altogether 24 implants) by PG surgery and 10 (mean age 60; 6 females; altogether 21 implants) by FG surgery. The accuracy in implant positioning was assessed by comparing the actual implant position to its planned position with the AGD as the main measure of effectiveness. Cost analysis included data on time investment (pre- and per-operative) and operational cost. The efficiency of PG and FG surgery was assessed by means of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the extra investment that is needed per unit reduction in AGD when compared to FH surgery.
RESULTS: FG surgery was most effective (mean AGD: 0.97mm) and FH surgery was least effective (mean AGD: 2.11mm) in terms of surgical accuracy. As a result, 5/26 implants had to be restored with a cement-retained restoration following FH surgery, although screw-retention was planned for all implants in every group. The total time investment did not differ significantly between the 3 groups (p=0.811). A significant additional cost per implant was found for PG and FG as compared to FH surgery pointing to 8.29% (€176.54) and 10.45% (€222.52), respectively (p<0.001). The ICER revealed an additional cost of €5.48 and €4.12 per percent reduction in AGD for PG and FG surgery, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The extra operational cost for guided implant surgery is acceptable and clinically justified since cementation can be avoided. FG surgery is the most efficient surgical approach, even though the absolute operational cost is higher when compared to PG and FH surgery. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three partially edentulous patients in need of ≥2 implants in the posterior maxilla were randomly allocated to one of the following treatment groups: FH, PG, FG. Eleven patients (mean age 57; 8 females; altogether 26 implants) were treated by FH surgery, 11 (mean age 53; 7 females; altogether 24 implants) by PG surgery and 10 (mean age 60; 6 females; altogether 21 implants) by FG surgery. The accuracy in implant positioning was assessed by comparing the actual implant position to its planned position with the AGD as the main measure of effectiveness. Cost analysis included data on time investment (pre- and per-operative) and operational cost. The efficiency of PG and FG surgery was assessed by means of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the extra investment that is needed per unit reduction in AGD when compared to FH surgery.
RESULTS: FG surgery was most effective (mean AGD: 0.97mm) and FH surgery was least effective (mean AGD: 2.11mm) in terms of surgical accuracy. As a result, 5/26 implants had to be restored with a cement-retained restoration following FH surgery, although screw-retention was planned for all implants in every group. The total time investment did not differ significantly between the 3 groups (p=0.811). A significant additional cost per implant was found for PG and FG as compared to FH surgery pointing to 8.29% (€176.54) and 10.45% (€222.52), respectively (p<0.001). The ICER revealed an additional cost of €5.48 and €4.12 per percent reduction in AGD for PG and FG surgery, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The extra operational cost for guided implant surgery is acceptable and clinically justified since cementation can be avoided. FG surgery is the most efficient surgical approach, even though the absolute operational cost is higher when compared to PG and FH surgery. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app