Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported Restorations
Background: The long-term success of implant-supported restorations is influenced by various implant placement techniques. Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial involved 120 patients requiring dental implants, divided into three equal groups based on the implant placement technique...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_973_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841543532625526784 |
|---|---|
| author | Priya Nagar Zakir Husain Utkarsh Gupta Malav Sheth Rahul Mishra HL Muthuraj |
| author_facet | Priya Nagar Zakir Husain Utkarsh Gupta Malav Sheth Rahul Mishra HL Muthuraj |
| author_sort | Priya Nagar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background:
The long-term success of implant-supported restorations is influenced by various implant placement techniques.
Materials and Methods:
This randomized controlled trial involved 120 patients requiring dental implants, divided into three equal groups based on the implant placement technique: Group A (conventional submerged), Group B (one-stage non-submerged), and Group C (guided surgery). All participants were followed for three years. The primary outcomes measured were implant stability (using implant stability quotient (ISQ) values) and marginal bone loss (using radiographic analysis). Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications.
Results:
The study results demonstrated significant differences among the implant placement techniques. Group C (guided surgery) exhibited the highest mean implant stability, with an ISQ value of 75.4, outperforming Group B (one-stage non-submerged) at 73.2 and Group A (conventional submerged) at 71.5. In terms of marginal bone loss, Group A demonstrated the greatest loss at 1.5 mm, whereas Group B and Group C experienced less bone loss, measuring 1.1 mm and 0.9 mm, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores were highest in Group C, with an average of 9.2 out of 10, followed by Group B at 8.7 and Group A at 8.3. Additionally, Group A recorded the highest incidence of prosthetic complications at 15%, compared to 10% in Group B and 5% in Group C, highlighting the superior performance of guided surgery in minimizing complications and enhancing overall outcomes.
Conclusion:
Guided implant surgery demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of implant stability, reduced marginal bone loss, and higher patient satisfaction compared to conventional submerged and one-stage techniques. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4ff1c10d648f4d3f94bdabd44bc76d0f |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-4ff1c10d648f4d3f94bdabd44bc76d0f2025-01-13T09:53:55ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-12-0116Suppl 4S3500S350210.4103/jpbs.jpbs_973_24Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported RestorationsPriya NagarZakir HusainUtkarsh GuptaMalav ShethRahul MishraHL MuthurajBackground: The long-term success of implant-supported restorations is influenced by various implant placement techniques. Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial involved 120 patients requiring dental implants, divided into three equal groups based on the implant placement technique: Group A (conventional submerged), Group B (one-stage non-submerged), and Group C (guided surgery). All participants were followed for three years. The primary outcomes measured were implant stability (using implant stability quotient (ISQ) values) and marginal bone loss (using radiographic analysis). Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications. Results: The study results demonstrated significant differences among the implant placement techniques. Group C (guided surgery) exhibited the highest mean implant stability, with an ISQ value of 75.4, outperforming Group B (one-stage non-submerged) at 73.2 and Group A (conventional submerged) at 71.5. In terms of marginal bone loss, Group A demonstrated the greatest loss at 1.5 mm, whereas Group B and Group C experienced less bone loss, measuring 1.1 mm and 0.9 mm, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores were highest in Group C, with an average of 9.2 out of 10, followed by Group B at 8.7 and Group A at 8.3. Additionally, Group A recorded the highest incidence of prosthetic complications at 15%, compared to 10% in Group B and 5% in Group C, highlighting the superior performance of guided surgery in minimizing complications and enhancing overall outcomes. Conclusion: Guided implant surgery demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of implant stability, reduced marginal bone loss, and higher patient satisfaction compared to conventional submerged and one-stage techniques.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_973_24dental implantsguided implant surgeryimplant placement techniquesimplant stabilitymarginal bone lossprosthetic complications |
| spellingShingle | Priya Nagar Zakir Husain Utkarsh Gupta Malav Sheth Rahul Mishra HL Muthuraj Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported Restorations Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences dental implants guided implant surgery implant placement techniques implant stability marginal bone loss prosthetic complications |
| title | Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported Restorations |
| title_full | Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported Restorations |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported Restorations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported Restorations |
| title_short | Comparative Study of Implant Placement Techniques and Their Effect on Long-Term Success of Implant-Supported Restorations |
| title_sort | comparative study of implant placement techniques and their effect on long term success of implant supported restorations |
| topic | dental implants guided implant surgery implant placement techniques implant stability marginal bone loss prosthetic complications |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_973_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT priyanagar comparativestudyofimplantplacementtechniquesandtheireffectonlongtermsuccessofimplantsupportedrestorations AT zakirhusain comparativestudyofimplantplacementtechniquesandtheireffectonlongtermsuccessofimplantsupportedrestorations AT utkarshgupta comparativestudyofimplantplacementtechniquesandtheireffectonlongtermsuccessofimplantsupportedrestorations AT malavsheth comparativestudyofimplantplacementtechniquesandtheireffectonlongtermsuccessofimplantsupportedrestorations AT rahulmishra comparativestudyofimplantplacementtechniquesandtheireffectonlongtermsuccessofimplantsupportedrestorations AT hlmuthuraj comparativestudyofimplantplacementtechniquesandtheireffectonlongtermsuccessofimplantsupportedrestorations |