Implant-supported rehabilitation with digital planning and surgical guidance: clinical-laboratory integration. Case report

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26871/killkana_salud.v10i1.1751

Keywords:

Dental Implants, Computer-Assisted Surgery, CAD/CAM, Implant-Supported Dental Prosthesis

Abstract

Introduction: Contemporary implantology has progressively incorporated digital workflows that integrate volumetric tomography, intraoral scanning, and computer-aided design, enabling prosthetically driven planning and more precise placement of dental implants. Guided surgery using 3D-printed surgical guides has emerged as a predictable alternative that enhances surgical safety and promotes clinical–laboratory integration. Clinical case: A case of a partially edentulous patient requiring implant-supported rehabilitation in the posterior region of the maxilla is presented. Digital planning was performed through the superimposition of DICOM and STL files, virtual implant design, and fabrication of a customized static surgical guide. Implant placement was carried out following a guided protocol, achieving adequate primary stability and correct three-dimensional positioning. Subsequently, the provisional prosthetic phase was completed using a CAD/CAM workflow, resulting in a restoration with appropriate fit, function, and esthetics. Conclusions: The integration of a digital clinical–laboratory workflow in the planning and execution of guided implant surgery represents a reliable and predictable strategy that optimizes surgical accuracy, reduces morbidity, and contributes to satisfactory prosthetic outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):25–42. doi:10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2

2. Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE. A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(Suppl 4):73-86. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x

3. D’Haese J, Van De Velde T, Elaut L, De Bruyn H. A prospective study on the accuracy of mucosally supported stereolithographic surgical guides in fully edentulous maxillae. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(2):293-303. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00255.x

4. Van Assche N, Van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, Jacobs R. Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34(9):816-821. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01127.x

5. Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(12):1430-1435. doi:10.1111/clr.12476

6. Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):124. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0

7. Güth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(7):1487-1494. doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1626-x

8. Gallucci GO, Hamilton A, Zhou W, Buser D, Chen S. Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):106-134. doi:10.1111/clr.13276

9. Albrektsson T, Donos N. Implant survival and complications. The Third EAO consensus conference. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):63-65. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02557.x

10. Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):7-21. doi: 10.1111/prd.12185

11. Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(Suppl):43-61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15635945/

12. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(4):465-72. doi:10.1111/clr.12567.

13. Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(Suppl 11):69-76. doi:10.1111/clr.12638

14. Arisan V, Karabuda CZ, Ozdemir T. Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. J Periodontol. 2010;81(1):43-51. doi:10.1902/jop.2009.090348

15. Di Giacomo GA, Cury PR, de Araújo NS, Sendyk WR, Sendyk CL. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol. 2005;76(4):503-507. doi:10.1902/jop.2005.76.4.503

16. Geng W, Liu C, Su Y, Li J, Zhou Y. Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(6):8442-8449. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26309497/

17. Buser D, Chen S, Weber HP, Belser UC. Early implant placement following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: biologic rationale and surgical procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28(5):441-451. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18990995/

18. Chen S, Buser D. Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla – a systematic Review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):186-215. doi:10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3

19. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Willings M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The effectiveness of immediate, early and conventional loading of dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(6):893-904. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18271370/

20. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163107. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163107

21. Mangano C, Luongo F, Migliario M, Mortellaro C, Mangano FG. Combining Intraoral Scans, Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Face Scans: The Virtual Patient. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(8):2241-2246. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000004485

22. Sanz M, Chapple IL. Clinical research on peri-implant diseases: consensus report of Working Group 4. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(Suppl 12):202-206. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01837.x

Published

2026-04-06

How to Cite

Urgiles Urgiles, C. D., Ludizaca, D. A., & Urgiles Esquivel , C. E. (2026). Implant-supported rehabilitation with digital planning and surgical guidance: clinical-laboratory integration. Case report. Killkana Salud Y Bienestar, 10(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.26871/killkana_salud.v10i1.1751

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.