A Comparison of the Time Efficiency and the Economics of Bone Graft Surgery vs. Computer-Aided Implant Surgery for Implant Placement in the Sinus Region: A Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial Study Volume 6 - Issue 3

Ghazwan Almahrous¹, Sandra David Tchouda², Nathalie Rançon³, Jean Luc Bosson⁴ and Thomas Fortin⁵*

• ¹Department of Oral Surgery, University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
• ²Medical Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble, France, France
• ³Department of Oral Surgery, Hospices Civils de Lyon, France
• ⁴Medical-Economic Evaluation Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble, France, France
• ⁵Oral Surgery department, Claude Bernard University, France

Received: May 10, 2021   Published: May 18, 2021

Corresponding author: Thomas Fortin, Oral Surgery Department, Claude Bernard University, Dental School, Lyon, France

DOI: 10.32474/SCSOAJ.2021.06.000236

Fulltext PDF

To view the Full Article   Peer-reviewed Article PDF

Abstract

Objective: To compare the time efficiency and the economics of Bone Graft Surgery (BGS) and Computer-Aided Implant Surgery (CAIS) for implant placement in patients with maxillary atrophy as well as the comparison of planned, placed, and loaded implants. Materials and Methods: Patients with extremely atrophic maxilla in need of implant placement were selected for a randomized controlled study clinical trial. The patients were divided randomly into two treatment groups: one group treated by using sinus grafting before implant placement and the group treated by using residual bone to place the implant by computer-aided implant surgery. Thirty Patients were assigned for each treatment group. The study provided a comparison of the time efficiency and economics of the two treatment groups.

Results: The results revealed a significant difference in terms of total surgical time duration and cost of treatment without prosthesis: p= 0.000. The time efficiency of time was 53.33 min for one implant while that of the CAIS group was 29 min for one implant; there was no significant difference in implant surgery duration p= 0.928; implant 2 surgery duration, p= 0.227 The Economic efficiency of the two groups was as follows: 1346.41 € for one implant in the BGS group versus 945.36 € for one implant in the CAIS group. While there was no significant difference in consultation fees p= 0.131and second implant surgery costs p= 0.584. And there was significant difference in assistant costs p= 0.000; treatment planning costs p= 0.000, implant surgery costs p= 0.006, and implant loading costs p= 0.048. In addition, there was no significant difference in the number of missing teeth p= 0.695; loaded implant p= 0.057 versus there was a significant difference in number planned implants p= 0.0074; implants p= 0.034 between the groups.

Conclusion: This study shows that Computer-Aided Implant Surgery seems to be more economical and time-efficient than the established conventional surgery by sinus lift and bone graft in dental implant placement, and the cost of treatment has increased for the sinus grafting procedures in Bone Graft Surgery. Also, the number of placed implants and planned implants was affected by the technique of implant placement. All planned implants were placed by Computer-Aided Implant Surgery while 81.5% of patients have placed their planned implants by bone grafting surgery.

Keywords: Dental Implant; Surgical Guide; 3D Imaging; Planning Software; Sinus Graft

Abstract| Introduction| Methods| Surgical Procedure| Statistical Analysis| Results| Patient’s Clinical Status| Times of Surgery Treatments| Economic Costs| Discussion| Conclusion| Conflict of interest| References|