Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students : A randomized controlled trial. / Søndergaard, Kasper; Hosseini, Mandana; Jensen, Simon Storgård; Spin-Neto, Rubens; Gotfredsen, Klaus.

In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 32, No. 9, 2021, p. 1072-1084.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Søndergaard, K, Hosseini, M, Jensen, SS, Spin-Neto, R & Gotfredsen, K 2021, 'Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial', Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1072-1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13802

APA

Søndergaard, K., Hosseini, M., Jensen, S. S., Spin-Neto, R., & Gotfredsen, K. (2021). Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 32(9), 1072-1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13802

Vancouver

Søndergaard K, Hosseini M, Jensen SS, Spin-Neto R, Gotfredsen K. Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2021;32(9):1072-1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13802

Author

Søndergaard, Kasper ; Hosseini, Mandana ; Jensen, Simon Storgård ; Spin-Neto, Rubens ; Gotfredsen, Klaus. / Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students : A randomized controlled trial. In: Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2021 ; Vol. 32, No. 9. pp. 1072-1084.

Bibtex

@article{a4ff2d65b29f40eaba98473a92010599,
title = "Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To compare fully guided with conventionally guided implant surgery performed by dental students in terms of deviation of actual implant position from an ideal implant position.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients in need of 26 straightforward implant-supported single crowns were randomly allocated to a fully guided (FG, n=14) or a conventionally guided (CG, n=12) implant surgery. In the preoperative CBCTs, 3 experienced investigators placed a virtual implant in the ideal position, twice, allowing deviational analysis in the facio-lingual (coronal) and mesio-distal (sagittal) planes for 7 parameters. Facio-lingual crestal deviation, facio-lingual apical deviation, facio-lingual angular deviation, mesio-distal crestal deviation, mesio-distal apical deviation, mesio-distal angular deviation and vertical deviation between the ideal, virtually placed position and actual implant position for the FG- and CG-groups were compared statistically (p<0.05) RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio-lingual apical deviation (p= 0.047) and for the facio-lingual angular deviation (p= 0.019), where the CG-group deviated more from the ideal position than the FG-group. The 5 other examined variables did not show any significant differences and none of the implants in the FG-group and CG-group were placed in conflict with the clinical guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported no difference in 5 out of 7 deviational parameters concerning actual implant position in relation to ideal implant position between a FG and CG implant placement protocol performed by dental students. Facio-lingual angular deviation and apical deviation were lower, when a FG protocol was followed. All implants were positioned according to clinical guidelines.",
author = "Kasper S{\o}ndergaard and Mandana Hosseini and Jensen, {Simon Storg{\aa}rd} and Rubens Spin-Neto and Klaus Gotfredsen",
note = "This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.1111/clr.13802",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "1072--1084",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students

T2 - A randomized controlled trial

AU - Søndergaard, Kasper

AU - Hosseini, Mandana

AU - Jensen, Simon Storgård

AU - Spin-Neto, Rubens

AU - Gotfredsen, Klaus

N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare fully guided with conventionally guided implant surgery performed by dental students in terms of deviation of actual implant position from an ideal implant position.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients in need of 26 straightforward implant-supported single crowns were randomly allocated to a fully guided (FG, n=14) or a conventionally guided (CG, n=12) implant surgery. In the preoperative CBCTs, 3 experienced investigators placed a virtual implant in the ideal position, twice, allowing deviational analysis in the facio-lingual (coronal) and mesio-distal (sagittal) planes for 7 parameters. Facio-lingual crestal deviation, facio-lingual apical deviation, facio-lingual angular deviation, mesio-distal crestal deviation, mesio-distal apical deviation, mesio-distal angular deviation and vertical deviation between the ideal, virtually placed position and actual implant position for the FG- and CG-groups were compared statistically (p<0.05) RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio-lingual apical deviation (p= 0.047) and for the facio-lingual angular deviation (p= 0.019), where the CG-group deviated more from the ideal position than the FG-group. The 5 other examined variables did not show any significant differences and none of the implants in the FG-group and CG-group were placed in conflict with the clinical guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported no difference in 5 out of 7 deviational parameters concerning actual implant position in relation to ideal implant position between a FG and CG implant placement protocol performed by dental students. Facio-lingual angular deviation and apical deviation were lower, when a FG protocol was followed. All implants were positioned according to clinical guidelines.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare fully guided with conventionally guided implant surgery performed by dental students in terms of deviation of actual implant position from an ideal implant position.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients in need of 26 straightforward implant-supported single crowns were randomly allocated to a fully guided (FG, n=14) or a conventionally guided (CG, n=12) implant surgery. In the preoperative CBCTs, 3 experienced investigators placed a virtual implant in the ideal position, twice, allowing deviational analysis in the facio-lingual (coronal) and mesio-distal (sagittal) planes for 7 parameters. Facio-lingual crestal deviation, facio-lingual apical deviation, facio-lingual angular deviation, mesio-distal crestal deviation, mesio-distal apical deviation, mesio-distal angular deviation and vertical deviation between the ideal, virtually placed position and actual implant position for the FG- and CG-groups were compared statistically (p<0.05) RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio-lingual apical deviation (p= 0.047) and for the facio-lingual angular deviation (p= 0.019), where the CG-group deviated more from the ideal position than the FG-group. The 5 other examined variables did not show any significant differences and none of the implants in the FG-group and CG-group were placed in conflict with the clinical guidelines.CONCLUSIONS: The present study reported no difference in 5 out of 7 deviational parameters concerning actual implant position in relation to ideal implant position between a FG and CG implant placement protocol performed by dental students. Facio-lingual angular deviation and apical deviation were lower, when a FG protocol was followed. All implants were positioned according to clinical guidelines.

U2 - 10.1111/clr.13802

DO - 10.1111/clr.13802

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 34166539

VL - 32

SP - 1072

EP - 1084

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

IS - 9

ER -

ID: 273012551