Guidance means accuracy: A randomized clinical trial on freehand versus guided dental implantation

Objectives A randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare all three known static guided surgery protocols (pilot, partial, and full) with each other and with freehand surgery in terms of accuracy, under the same conditions. Material and Methods A total of 207 implants of the same brand and type were placed in 101 partially edentulous volunteers in need of implantation in the mandible or maxilla or both. All cases were digitally planned, and the comparison of the planned and actual implant positions was performed using a medical image analysis software with dedicated algorithms. The primary outcome variable was angular deviation (AD, degrees). The secondary outcome variables were coronal global deviation (CGD, mm), apical global deviation (AGD, mm), and voxel overlap (VO, %). Results AD showed stepwise improvement in significant steps as the amount of guidance increased. The highest mean AD (7.03° ± 3.44) was obtained by freehand surgery and the lowest by fully guided surgery (3.04° ± 1.51). As for the secondary outcome variables, all guided protocols turned out to be significantly superior to freehand surgery, but they were not always significantly different from each other. Conclusions As for the comparison that this study sought to perform, it can be said that the static guided approach significantly improves the accuracy of dental implant surgery as compared to freehand surgery. Furthermore, the results suggest that any degree of guidance yields better results than freehand surgery and that increasing the level of guidance increases accuracy.