Warning: include(/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/includes/code.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 2

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/includes/code.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 2
A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional and Computer-Assisted Implant Planning and Placement in Partially Edentulous Patients. Part 3: Time and Cost Analyses
Warning: include(/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prdincludes/05_update/javascript.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 39

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prdincludes/05_update/javascript.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 39
Follow Us      

LOGIN

   Official Journal of The Academy of Osseointegration

 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 39 , Issue 3
May/June 2019

Pages e71–e82


A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional and Computer-Assisted Implant Planning and Placement in Partially Edentulous Patients. Part 3: Time and Cost Analyses


David Schneider, PD Dr Med, Dr Med Dent/Manuel Sancho-Puchades, DMD, MSc, PhD/Florian Schober, Dipl. Ing./Daniel Thoma, PD Dr Med Dent/Christoph Hämmerle, Prof Dr Med Dent/Ronald Jung, Prof Dr Med Dent, PhD


PMID: 30986285
DOI: 10.11607/prd.4146

This paper performed time and cost analyses and compared conventional vs computer-assisted implant planning and placement (CAIPP) protocols when placing single implants in partially edentulous patients. Partially edentulous patients were randomly allocated to one of three treatment groups: preoperative planning based on a conventional two-dimensional radiograph and free-hand implant placement (control [C], n = 26) or computer-assisted implant planning based on three-dimensional (3D) computer-tomography (test group 1 [T1], n = 24; test group 2 [T2], n = 23). A surgical guide was produced by stereolithography in T1 and by 3D printing in T2. In all patients, open-flap implant placement procedures were performed. Time and costs derived from each working step were recorded for each treatment protocol. Descriptive and analytic statistics were used to display the data and uncover differences between treatment groups. Overall office time was similar in all groups (C = 63.8 min; T1 = 77.2 min; T2 = 81.7 min). CAIPP and conventional protocols required similar times to perform the preoperative diagnosis, radiographic exam, and implant surgery. CAIPP protocols required longer surgical planning and template-production times. Overall economic costs were 31% (T1) to 20% (T2) higher for the CAIPP protocols due to the radiographic investigation and the surgical template production (C = Swiss francs [CHF] 1,567; T1 = CHF 2,268; T2 = CHF 1,946). In the present indication and methodologic set-up, computer-assisted protocols did not show an advantage over conventional protocols in terms of time or financial savings. The temporal and financial expenses should be put into perspective to potential benefits.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

PRD Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help