The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Restoration-type Outcome of Freehand Implant Placement in Single Edentulous Gaps: An Observational Study

Linah M Ashy

Keywords : Freehand implant placement, Restoration outcome, Retrospective observational study

Citation Information : Ashy LM. Restoration-type Outcome of Freehand Implant Placement in Single Edentulous Gaps: An Observational Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (11):1274-1278.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2706

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: To determine the restoration-type outcome of implants placed freehanded in single edentulous gaps. Materials and methods: Forty-nine implant analogs present in working models of 46 patients representing implants placed freehand with no surgical guides in single edentulous gaps were included in this study. Each model was scanned using an optical scanner and a cone beam-CT. Simplant Pro18 software was used to create a virtual tooth replacing the missing tooth in the scanned model. Two virtual implants were created; one superimposed on the implant analog of the model and a second in relation to the virtual crown with its long axis passing through the cingulum or perpendicular to the occlusal table of the virtual crown. Measurement of angular deviation in the position of the placed implant from that of the planned implant was calculated. Results: The average deviation in the position of placed implants was 9.78 ± 6.47 degrees angular deviation. There was no statistically significant difference in the extent of angular deviation between maxillary and mandibular implants. Whereas, there was a statistically significant difference between anterior and posterior implants. Clinically, 70.57% of the placed anterior implants, 29.41% of premolar implants, and 20% of molar implants need to be restored with cement-retained crowns. Conclusion: For single edentulous gaps, the potential for a cement-retained implant crown is significantly higher with freehand implant placement in the anterior than in the posterior regions. Clinical significance: With freehand implant placement in anterior single edentulous gaps, the potential for a cement-retained implant crown outcome is significantly higher than in posterior gaps. Maximum precision in implant treatment planning and placement is required in this region of the mouth to achieve optimum results.

  1. Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, et al. Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1996;11(4):450–455.
  2. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, et al. Cemented vs screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1999;14(1):137–141.
  3. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw vs cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J 2006;201(8):501–507. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157.
  4. Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Givani A, et al. Cemented vs screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012;54(4):355–364.
  5. Amorfini L, Storelli S, Mosca D, et al. Comparison of cemented vs screw-retained, customized computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture zirconia abutments for esthetically located single tooth implant: a 10-year randomized prospective study. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31(4):359–366. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5305.
  6. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained vs screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2003;18(5):719–728.
  7. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, et al. Peri-implant soft tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multicenter, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implant Res 2006;17(4):375–379. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01232.x.
  8. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, et al. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implant Res 2012;23(Suppl 6):163–201. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x.
  9. Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, et al. Evaluation of cement-retained vs screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(4):419–427. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026.
  10. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- vs cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions—a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2014;29(Suppl):84–98. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1.
  11. Millen C, Brägger U, Wittneben JG. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2015;30(1):110–124. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3607.
  12. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1999;14(6):865–868.
  13. Kotsakis GA, Zhang L, Gaillard P, et al. Investigation of the association between cement retention and prevalent peri-implant diseases: a cross-sectional study. J Periodontol 2016;87(3):212–220. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2015.150450.
  14. Priest G. A current perspective on Screw-retained single-implant restorations: a review of pertinent literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;29(3):161–171. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12283.
  15. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2004;19(Suppl):43–61.
  16. Morton D, Chen ST, Martin WC, et al. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding optimizing esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2014;29(Suppl):216–220. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2013.g3.
  17. Younes F, Cosyn J, De Bruyckere T, et al. A randomized controlled study on the accuracy of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45(6):721–732. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12897.
  18. Van de Velde T, Glor F, De Bruyn H. A model study on flapless implant placement by clinicians with a different experience level in implant surgery. Clin Oral Implant Res 2008;19(1):66–72.
  19. Vermeulen J. The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2017;32(3):617–624. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5065.
  20. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Hamel J, et al. Evaluation of the difference in accuracy between implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates vs the conventional free-hand method—a combined in vivo–in vitro technique using cone-beam CT (Part II). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38(7):488–493. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2009.10.023.
  21. Payer M, Kirmeier R, Jakse N, et al. Surgical factors influencing mesiodistal implant angulation. Clin Oral Implant Res 2008;19(3): 265–270. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01464.x.
  22. Walton JN, Huizinga SC, Peck CC. Implant angulation: a measurement technique, implant overdenture maintenance, and the influence of surgical experience. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(6):523–530.
  23. Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, et al. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 2018;33(1):101–115. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5556.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.