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

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 at 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 presented higher levels in CS ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Flapless S-CAIS allowed smaller linear and angular deviations than the conventional technique. However, PIBL was higher in S-CAIS; the conventional technique led to a greater angiogenic and bone remodeling activity by elevating the angiogenic and bone markers levels. 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. Trial registration ReBEC-RBR-8556fzp.