IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i9p2990-d350383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Ghazwan Almahrous

    (Department of Oral Surgery, Dental School, University Claude Bernard, 69003 Lyon, France
    ThEMAS TIMC UMR CNRS 5525, Grenoble Joseph Fourier University, 38041 Grenoble, France)

  • Sandra David-Tchouda

    (ThEMAS TIMC UMR CNRS 5525, Grenoble Joseph Fourier University, 38041 Grenoble, France
    Medical-Economic Evaluation Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble, 38700 Grenoble, France)

  • Aboubacar Sissoko

    (Cellule Data Stat, University Hospital of Grenoble, 38700 Grenoble, France)

  • Nathalie Rancon

    (Department of Oral Surgery, Hospices Civils, 69003 Lyon, France)

  • Jean-Luc Bosson

    (ThEMAS TIMC UMR CNRS 5525, Grenoble Joseph Fourier University, 38041 Grenoble, France
    Medical-Economic Evaluation Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble, 38700 Grenoble, France)

  • Thomas Fortin

    (Department of Oral Surgery, Dental School, University Claude Bernard, 69003 Lyon, France
    ThEMAS TIMC UMR CNRS 5525, Grenoble Joseph Fourier University, 38041 Grenoble, France
    Medical-Economic Evaluation Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble, 38700 Grenoble, France)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for two implant placement techniques in cases of sinus bone atrophy (bone graft surgery (BGS) versus computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS)), after surgery and one year later, and to evaluate the clinical success of both treatments. Methods: Sixty patients with bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla and in need of implant placement were randomly assigned to two groups, and in accordance with the case report form (CRF), 30 were treated with BGS and 30 with CAIS. Immediately after treatment and one year later, PROMs were assessed, and the clinical success of both treatments was evaluated. Results: No significant differences were found between BGS and CAIS with regard to the following: loss of implants ( p = 492); patient recommendation ( p = 210); duration of surgery ( p = 987); pain on the intervention day ( p = 512); pain in the week after intervention ( p = 299); and complications in the stage of surgery ( p = 1.00). Similarly, at one year, no differences were found with regard to the following: pain around implant ( p = 481); infection of implants ( p = 491); abnormal radiographic imaging ( p = 226); occurrence of undesirable events ( p = 1.00); loss of one of the implants ( p = 1.00); plaque detection ( p = 1.00); bleeding on probing ( p = 236); and presence of keratinized mucosa ( p = 226). However, a significant difference was found among BGS and CAIS with regard to the number of consultations ( p = 0001); number of implants placed ( p = 033); and treatment difficulty ( p = 0369). Significant differences were found for peri-implantitis ( p = 0481) and radiology of craterization ( p = 020) in clinical examination at the first year. Conclusion: Treatment difficulty and number of consultations were higher for BGS than for CAIS, as well as peri-implantitis and bone craterization at one year, indicating significant differences between the two treatments. However, there were no statistically significant differences between BGS and CAIS regarding the other PROMs, at placement and after one year.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghazwan Almahrous & Sandra David-Tchouda & Aboubacar Sissoko & Nathalie Rancon & Jean-Luc Bosson & Thomas Fortin, 2020. "Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:2990-:d:350383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/2990/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/2990/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pokpong Amornvit & Sasiwimol Sanohkan, 2019. "The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hang-Nga Mai & Jaeil Kim & Youn-Hee Choi & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Hang-Nga Mai & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "The Effect of Perioral Scan and Artificial Skin Markers on the Accuracy of Virtual Dentofacial Integration: Stereophotogrammetry Versus Smartphone Three-Dimensional Face-Scanning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:2990-:d:350383. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.