Does a computer provide better outcome for implant insertion?

Can you achieve better outcomes for implant insertion with the help of computer and not through the procedures that we are used to? Does a guided protocol fit better for particular cases? Our investigation is referred to evidences for the results that modern technologies promise.

The investigators have studied lots of publications, which contained a comparison of computer-aided and ordinary treatment protocols, their pros and cons. The results were limited enough so they provided no absolute evidences of any distictions between the mentioned types. Conclusions are issued in the “BMC Oral Health”.

Evidences prove almost the same result

According to the research, through the computer assistance dentists make required procedures easier. Minimalized invasive surgery and prefabrication of fixed prosthesis, which are ready for immediate implantation, refer to advantages. Still, there are some cons: dentist and the team have to pass a learning step. They also have to spend more time to plan a surgery and make significant investments into equipment.

Popularity of these protocols is the reason for insufficient accurate information both for dentists and patients about this type of surgery.

This investigation has been made to provide accurate results and compare computerized implant surgery and conventional one.
The investigators have studied the Medline data base for random study that includes comparison of technical influence on the implantation in the alveolar crest and conventional approach, which included the following:

  • Minimum 5 patients in the group;
  • Followup more than 6 months after loading;
  • Clinical, patient-centered and radiographic results or economic evaluation.

In a year after the final loading, one of investigations proved almost the same result in both groups and none of patients had lost an implant. Still, there was no substantial distinctions in bleeding, depth of pocket probing, life quality or loss of periimplant marginal bone. Nevertheless, investigators presume that document to have a high bias risk in randomization.

In the other research, in a year after the implants had been placed, there were also no great distinctions in complication, implant failure, peri-implant loss of bone and patients’ satisfaction. Still, patients, who had been treated with conventional approach, claimed to have more pain after operation and swelling.

The time was the same for both groups, however, the group for assisted surgery had more complicated cases.

Investigation of high quality
Investigator want to provide more accurate results for the protocols, so they need a more precise investigation.