Comparison between flapless-guided and conventional surgery for implant placement: a 12-month randomized clinical trial

Research Published: 19 November 2022 Clinical Oral Investigations (2022)Cite this article Abstract Objectives The study was aimed at comparing implants installed with guided and conventional surgery. Material and methods Twenty-nine total edentulous patients were selected, and maxillary contralateral quadrants were randomly assigned to static computer-aided implant surgery (S-CAIS): flapless computer-guided surgery, and conventional surgery (CS): flap surgery with conventional planning. Tomography scans were performed at baseline and 10 days after the surgery for deviation measurement, and radiography was done at baseline and after 6 and 12 months, for peri-implant bone level (PIBL) analysis. Peri-implant fluid and subgingival biofilm were collected to evaluate bone markers and periodontal pathogens. Results S-CAIS showed less linear deviation at the apical point and the midpoint and less angular deviation (p < 0.05), with greater depth discrepancy in the positioning of the platform (p < 0.05). Higher values of vertical PIBL were observed for the S-CAIS group at baseline (p < 0.05), while lower values of horizontal PIBL were observed for CS (p < 0.05). Bone markers and Tf presented higher levels in CS (p < 0.05). Flapless S-CAIS allowed smaller linear and angular deviations than the conventional technique. Conclusion However, PIBL was higher in S-CAIS; the conventional technique led to a greater angiogenic and bone remodeling activity by elevating the angiogenic levels and bone markers. Clinical relevance Evaluating the different implant insertion techniques can guide clinical and surgical regarding the accuracy, the release pattern of bone markers, and the peri-implant bone level.