Improved positional accuracy of dental implant placement using a haptic and machine-vision-controlled collaborative surgery robot: A pilot randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare the implant accuracy, safety and morbidity between robot-assisted and freehand dental implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects requiring single-site dental implant placement were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to freehand implant placement and robot-assisted implant placement. Differences in positional accuracy of the implant, surgical morbidity and complications were assessed. The significance of intergroup differences was tested with an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol (PP) analysis (excluding one patient due to calibration error).

RESULTS

Twenty patients (with a median age of 37, 13 female) were included. One subject assigned to the robotic arm was excluded from the PP analysis because of a large calibration error due to the dislodgement of the index. For robot-assisted and freehand implant placement, with the PP analysis, the median (25th-75th percentile) platform global deviation, apex global deviation and angular deviation were 1.23 (0.9-1.4) mm/1.9 (1.2-2.3) mm (p = .03, the Mann-Whitney U-test), 1.40 (1.1-1.6) mm/2.1 (1.7-3.9) mm (p < .01) and 3.0 (0.9-6.0)°/6.7 (2.2-13.9)° (p = .08), respectively. Both methods showed limited damage to the alveolar ridge and had similar peri- and post-operative morbidity and safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted implant placement enabled greater positional accuracy of the implant compared to freehand placement in this pilot trial. The robotic system should be further developed to simplify surgical procedures and improve accuracy and be validated in properly sized trials assessing the full spectrum of relevant outcomes.

[Interpretation of the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement international consensus report]

Selection and measurement of clinical outcome are key components of clinical research in implant dentistry. Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine took the lead and collaborated with multiple internationally renowned colleges of stomatology to develop an international consensus on the core outcome set and measurement in implant dentistry, which took two years and was published in May, 2023 in Journal of Clinical Periodontology and Clinical Oral Implants Research simultaneously. The consensus, aiming at identifying the full spectrum of benefits and harms of interventions, provides a comprehensive, agreed, and standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported as a minimum in clinical trials relating with implant dentistry, bone augmentation, and soft tissue augmentation. The present review describes the methodology and key elements of the consensus to help Chinese clinical researchers fully understand and appropriately apply the core outcome set and improve the overall quality of Chinese clinical research in implant dentistry.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report

AIM

Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals.

RESULTS

The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups).

CONCLUSIONS

The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Multi-stakeholder contribution to the identification of a core outcome set and measurements in implant dentistry (ID-COSM initiative) using the Delphi methodology

AIM

To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology.

RESULTS

From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied "a priori" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report

AIM

Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals.

RESULTS

The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups).

CONCLUSIONS

The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Multi-stakeholder contribution to the identification of a core outcome set and measurements in implant dentistry (ID-COSM initiative) using the Delphi methodology

AIM

To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology.

RESULTS

From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied "a priori" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

Buccal bone thickness and mid-facial soft tissue recession after various surgical approaches for immediate implant placement: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of controlled trials

AIM

To evaluate the relative efficacy and confidence in the precision of the results of different surgical interventions for immediate implant placement in the anterior area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Randomized controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques in anterior jaws for type 1 implant placement were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness (BBT) reduction, and mid-facial soft tissue recession (MSTR). Risks of bias assessment, network meta-analysis (NMA), sensitivity analysis, and quality-of-evidence assessment were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies reporting on 948 subjects and 5 surgical interventions were included. Fourteen early failures were reported. Compared with open-flap surgery without tissue augmentation (F-N) and looking at BBT preservation, NMA showed that there was moderate confidence that flapless surgery with hard tissue augmentation (FL-HTA) was better than flapless surgery without tissue augmentation (FL-N) or open-flap surgery with hard tissue augmentation (F-HTA) (mean difference -0.8 mm, 95% confidence interval: -1.1 to -0.5 mm; -0.6 mm, -0.9 to -0.4 mm; and -0.5 mm, -0.7 to -0.3 mm, respectively). There was moderate confidence that flapless surgery with hard and soft tissue augmentation (FL-HTA&STA) could significantly prevent MSTR compared with FL-HTA (-0.5 mm, -0.7 to -0.3 mm) and FL-N (-0.6 mm, -1.2 to -0.04 mm). However, there was no significant additional benefit in BBT with the FL-HTA&STA approach compared to the FL-HTA approach (-0.30 mm, -0.81 to 0.21 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

For immediate implant placement in the anterior areas, the FL-HTA approach better preserves BBT (moderate confidence); adding STA improves the stability of the mid-facial soft tissue level (moderate confidence) but at the expense of BBT (low confidence).