Comparative study between bone height changes around implants placed using stereolithographic versus conventional surgical guides

Background: Accuracy of implant placement using computer designed surgical guides as
compared to conventional laboratory-processed guides has been investigated by many researchers.
However there are no published articles on the effect of placing dental implants using computerdesigned
guides on bone height changes around the implants as compared to those placed using
conventional guides.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare between bone height changes around dental
implants placed using stereolithographic surgical guides versus conventional guides in completely
edentulous patients rehabilitated with 2-implant supported mandibular overdentures opposed by
conventional maxillary complete dentures.
Methods: This parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 14 participants (age ranging
from 50-60) with a mean age of 56.7 years who were selected based on specific inclusion criteria.
Conventional maxillary and mandibular compete dentures were constructed for all participants who
were then randomly divided into two equal groups (7 participants in each). All participants received
two implants, 3.5 mm in width and 10 mm in length, in the mandibular inter-foraminal areas
(canine region). However implants in Group I (Control) were placed using a conventional surgical
guide while implants in Group II (Experimental Group) were placed using a stereolithographic
surgical guide. After implants’ osseointegration, all participants received ball attachment- retained
mandibular overdentures. Bone height changes around the installed implants were evaluated with
the aid of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Measurements were recorded three
times at 0 months, 6 months and 12 months after overdenture insertion and the changes were
calculated and statistically analysed. Statistical significance was set at 5 %.
Results: All participants attended all follow up visits with no drop outs. None of the implants
was lost presenting a 100% survival rate for both groups. After 6 months post-insertion, the mean
bone loss was 0.32mm and 0.31mm for groups I and II respectively. After 12 months post- insertion,
mean bone loss reached 0.61mm and 0.49mm for groups I and II respectively. There were no
statistically significant differences between the two groups at both (6 and 12 months) follow-up
periods.
Conclusion: Bone height changes around implants placed with stereolithographic surgical
guides versus conventional guides were statistically insignificant with no relevant superiority of
one guide over the other. Both surgical guides provided clinically successful implant treatment with
a 100% survival rate for both groups during the one-year follow-up period.