Effectiveness of Flapless Static Computer-Aided Implant Surgery in Post-Oncological Patients: A Retrospective Study.
Аннотация
Objectives
The present retrospective study evaluates the clinical outcomes of a standardized implant-supported rehabilitative workflow based on flapless static computer-assisted implant surgery (S-CAIS) in post-oncological patients, compared with a non-oncological cohort treated using the same approach.
Methods
In total, 26 patients were included in this study. They were divided into oncological patients (11) and non-oncological patients (15). The protocol used for digital implantoprosthetic surgical planning was the same in both groups, and it involved different decision-making algorithms depending on whether the patient was partially or completely edentulous. Only flapless surgery was performed in this study. In the case of intercalated edentulism without loss of vertical dimension, implant-prosthetic rehabilitation proceeded directly; by contrast, in the case of severe occlusal and vertical dimension alterations, temporary rehabilitation was performed to stabilize occlusion. For totally edentulous patients, the absence of stable landmarks complicated the alignment of the CT dental scan/CT cone beam, so the Evobite device was used. Implant survival was evaluated over a follow-up ranging from 1 to 3 years. The primary outcome was implant survival, defined as the proportion of functioning implants among the total number of implants placed in each group.
Results
The implant survival rate was 96.2% in oncological patients and 98.8% in non-oncological patients.
Conclusions
High implant survival rates were observed in post-oncological patients treated with flapless S-CAIS, although these findings should be interpreted within the limitations of the retrospective study design and selected patient population.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.