Clinical and radiological outcomes of novel digital workflow and dynamic navigation for single‐implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone: 1‐year prospective case series. Issue 12 (8th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pozzi, Alessandro; Arcuri, Lorenzo; Carosi, Paolo; Nardi, Alessandra; Kan, Joseph
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 32:Issue 12(2021)
• Page Start: 1397
• Page End: 1410
• Publication Date: 2021-09-08
• Subjects: dental implant -- digital workflow -- Dynamic navigation -- guided surgery -- immediate loading; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13839
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To evaluate clinical, radiological performance of novel digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation to streamline in one‐visit single‐implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone. Material and methods: Consecutive patients requiring one single‐implant in aesthetic zone of both jaws were treated between May and September 2017. Primary outcomes were implant and prosthetic success rates, surgical and prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), final pink aesthetic score (PES‐f), and implant stability quotient (ISQ‐f). Secondary outcomes were ISQ‐0 and PES‐0 at implant positioning and PES‐p at definitive prosthesis placement. Potential effect of jaw (maxilla vs mandible), biotype (thin vs thick), type of incision (flap vs flapless), and implant site (healed vs. post‐extractive) on the primary outcomes (MBL, PES‐f, and ISQ‐f) was evaluated through a multivariable analysis. Results: Fifty‐two implants were placed (follow‐up 18.6, 15–20 months). One post‐extractive implant failed. No other surgical, biological complications occurred, accounting for 98.10% cumulative success rate (CSR). No definitive prostheses failed. Mean MBL was −0.63 ± 0.25 mm (−1.69 to −0.06). PES‐f was 12.34 ± 1.41 (9–14). ISQ‐f was 78.1 ± 3.2 (70–84). Age had significantly negative effect on MBL and PES‐f ( p = .0058 and p = .0052). No other variables significantly affected primary outcomes. Conclusions: Within study limitations, investigated digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation was reliable for single‐implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone in one visit. No statistically significant difference was found for MBL, PES‐f, and ISQ‐f, considering type of incision (flap vs. flapless), implant site (healed vs post‐extractive), jaw (maxilla vs. mandible), and biotype (thick vs. thin). Live‐tracked dynamic navigation may have contributed to improve operator clinical performance regardless of implant site characteristics. Further investigations are needed to confirm positive outcomes.