Guided versus freehand single implant placement: A 3-year parallel randomized clinical trial
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 15, 2025
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Diego Lops1, Antonino Palazzolo2, Stefano Calza3
1Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry, University of Milan, Italy.
Objectives:
The present parallel randomized clinical trial aimed to assess, after a 3-year follow-up period, whether the choice of surgical technique-either manual or guided-and of the operator - non-expert operator or skilled - can affect the stability of peri‑implant marginal bone levels in implants placed 1 mm sub-crestal.
Materials And Methods:
Patients received platform-switched implants (Anyridge, MegaGen Implant Co., Gyeongbuk, South Korea) featuring a 5-degree internal conical connection and supporting single screw-retained fixed crowns. The implants were randomly assigned to be placed through a digitally static guided surgery procedure (Test group - GS) or a freehand surgical technique (Control Group - FH). A non-expert operator (fewer than 20 implants placed in his professional activity) was selected to perform procedures for the GS Group, while a skilled operator (with over 1000 implants placed in his professional activity) was chosen for the FH Group. Marginal bone level (MBL) was measured at prosthesis installation (t0) and at 1 (t1), 2 (t2) and 3 years (t3) of follow-up. Changes in MBL from t0 to t3 were analyzed through periapical radiographs. Moreover, MBL changes at all time points were correlated to different supra-crestal soft tissue heights (STH): less than 3 and ≥ 3 mm, respectively.
Results:
60 implants in 18 patients were examined, with 30 implants allocated to the GS group and 30 to the FH group. The difference in MBL change between the two groups was 0.11 ± 0.22 mm, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.61). At the time of prosthetic loading, the mean MBL for implants with STH less than 3 mm was 0.33 mm higher than implants with STH ≥ 3 mm, though this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.065).
Conclusions:
Digitally static guided implant placement, performed by a non-expert operator, does not limit marginal bone remodeling, when compared to a freehand procedure performed by an experienced operator.
Clinical Significance:
After correct and careful planning, early marginal bone levels (MBL) around conical connection, platform-switched implants placed sub-crestally may be stable in time. Digital planning and surgery have the potential to assist non-expert clinicians in achieving implant placements with comparable outcomes to those performed by experts.
