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

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 < .05). Results Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio-lingual apical deviation (p = .047) and for the facio-lingual angular deviation (p = .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.