Full-arch implant treatment has traditionally been the domain of specialists. However, advancements in technology and more predictable workflows have made these transformative procedures accessible to general dentists too.
Technology-Driven Success
Underpinning this revolution is the use of digital guided implant treatment. Systems such as MGUIDE have allowed dentists to:
1.
Reduce Implant Duration
In a network meta-analysis by Abdelhay et al. guided surgery was determined to reduce implant failure by 64.98%.1 As sensational as this result may seem, it represents an average across the board for studies involving treatment of varying complexities and review periods.
The failure reduction for full arch implants over the long term are even more extreme. Ravida et al. compared digital guided and freehand full arch treatment with an average follow-up of almost ten years. They found that 19.8% of freehand implants failed compared to just 3.3% for those placed with a surgical guide. In other words, the use of a surgical guide prevented 83.33% of implant failures, or16.5% of all implants placed from failing.2
When they examined the failures in more detail they observed that the guided case failures only lost one implant each, whereas the freehand cases tended to be more catastrophic, involving multiple implant failures. For GP dentists those are the absolute nightmare scenario. If you have just one fail, they can either redo it themselves or get a specialist to do it. It’s an infinitely greater problem professionally, commercially and legally when the patient’s extensive surgery is made more or less pointless due to multiple failures.
2.
Shorten surgery duration
Guided full arch implant treatment has been found to more than halve surgery time. In a randomised controlled clinical trial by Arisan et al. they determined that the freehand surgeries took 68.71 minutes on average and the guided surgeries took 23.53 minutes on average.3 Across the board this saved 45.18 minutes or about 65% of clinical time spent on for the surgical procedure.
3.
Shorten prosthetic workflows
Guided surgery also allows more predictable and streamlined prosthetic workflows. This results in fewer appointments and reduced treatment time for both clinicians and patients.
In a systematic review published by Graf et al., guided treatment was determined to reduce prosthetic treatment time by just under 1.5 hours.4 The fundamental driver of this efficiency is the significant improvement in accuracy of implant placement and the ability to forward plan execute the restorative procedures.
4.
Reduce complications
Guidance means accuracy. This means fewer positional errors and their resulting complications. 5,6,7 Especially for full arch patients it also means a less invasive surgery. This has been found to translate to reduced post operative pain and swelling. 8,9,10 As a result, patients report higher satisfaction from digital implant treatment. 11
The Evolving Landscape
The demand for comprehensive oral rehabilitations is growing. More and more patients are seeking functional, aesthetically pleasing options that restore smile and confidence. Full-arch implants are a key component of the treatment mix, offering a secure, long-term solution.
Data from the AIHW shows how great the unmet treatment need for full arch implants really is:12
- 1 in 25 adults have no teeth.
- 1 in 10 adults have an inadequate dentition, including 46% of those aged over 75.
- In all, 14% of adults would benefit from full arch implant treatment.
Empowering General Dentists
With the right training and support, general dentists can successfully incorporate full arch implant treatments into their practice. Key considerations include:
- Clinical Training: Acquiring the necessary skills through reputable courses.
- Mentorship: Guidance from an experienced clinician can help immensely during your early cases.
- Tech Integration: Utilizing digital planning and guided surgery tools is critical to achieving the best, most predictable outcomes.
- Clinical Support: you don’t have to go it alone. Nothing beats an experienced auxiliary team who can help both inside and outside your clinic.
MoreDent's Full Arch Workflow MoreDent's world-leading workflow provides a comprehensive solution, guiding dentists through each step of the full-arch treatment process. From case planning to guided surgery and restoration, our support ensures predictable outcomes and enhanced patient satisfaction.
- 1 Abdelhayet al., Failure rates associated with guided versus non-guided dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BDJ Open. 2021Aug 18;7(1):31.
- 2 Ravidà et al., Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of computer-guided versus conventional implant-retained hybrid prostheses: A long-term retrospective analysis of treatment protocols, J Periodontol, 89(9):1015-1024.
- 3 Arisan et al., Implant surgery using bone- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides in totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post-operative outcomes of computer-aided vs. standard techniques. ClinOral Implants Res. 2010 Sep;21(9):980-8.
- 4 Graf et al., Time and costs related to computer-assisted versus non-computer-assisted implant planning and surgery. A systematic review, Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Oct;32 Suppl 21(Suppl21):303-317. Erratum in: Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Dec;32(12):1506.
- 5 Varga et al., Guidance means accuracy: A randomized clinical trial onfreehand versus guided dental implantation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020May;31(5):417-430.
- 6 Gargallo-Albiolet al., Fully Guided Versus Half-Guided and Freehand Implant Placement: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020Nov/Dec;35(6):1159-1169.
- 7 Fang Zhang, Xue Gao, Zhang-Yan Ye, Dong-Qian Xu, Xi Ding. The clinical accuracy of the implant digital surgical guide: A meta-analysis. Am J Dent.2020 Dec;33(6):296-304.
- 8 Romandini et al., Minimal invasiveness at dental implant placement: A systematic review with meta-analyses on flapless fully guided surgery. Periodontology2000. 2022 Jul 30.
- 9 Xiang et al., Comparisons Between Digital-Guided and N nondigital Protocol in Implant Planning, Placement, and Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysisof Randomised Controlled Trials. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2023Dec;23(4):101919.
- 10 Amorfini et al., Immediately Loaded Implants in Rehabilitation of the Maxilla: A Two-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Guided Surgery versus Standard Procedure. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Apr;19(2):280-295.
- 11 Cattoni et al., Digital Smile Designed Computer-Aided Surgery versus Traditional Workflow in "All on Four" Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial with 4-Years Follow-Up. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar26;18(7):3449.
- 12 https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/dental-oral-health/oral-health-and-dental-care-in-australia/contents/healthy-mouths
