One-year outcomes of chairside fully guided vs. conventional partially guided implant
By Jungwon Lee, Yeon‐Wha Baek, Jongseung Kim, Jin‐Young Park, Joo‐Yeon Lee, Da‐mi Kim, Ui‐Won Jung, Jae‐Kook Cha, Young‐Jun Lim
Originally at onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Summary & scoring by The Bell Brief (Dr. Jennifer Bell) using the Drill-Down Protocol (Drill-Down Score) — not the original publisher.
Why it matters for dental
Specialists and implant teams gain one-year data comparing fully guided flapless versus partially guided open-flap placement after crestal sinus augmentation, showing improved positional accuracy but no statistically significant difference in marginal bone level change once adjusted.
Key points
- Fifty-six patients were randomized 1:1 to chairside fully guided flapless or conventional partially guided open-flap implant placement with transcrestal sinus augmentation.
- At one year, fully guided implants exhibited lower horizontal, three-dimensional, and angular deviations from the planned position compared with the partially guided group.
- Unadjusted analysis indicated more favorable mesial and mean marginal bone level changes in the fully guided group; after adjustment these differences were not statistically significant.
- Stepwise regression retained three-dimensional angular deviation and vertical apical deviation as predictors associated with mesial and mean marginal bone level change, respectively.
Who should care
Read the original on Clinical Oral Implants Research
Full reporting and any paywall content live on onlinelibrary.wiley.com. We summarize and score; we do not republish.
Related
- ·Research
Diagnosed dental diseases, tooth loss
- ·Research
A simple liquid can stop cavities without drilling, major study confirms
- ·Industry
University of Rochester awarded $5.1M to strengthen US dental workforce
- ·Research
Factors associated with patient-reported outcomes more than 5 years after dental implant