Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the absence of contraindications to implants, implant repair is the preferred method to treat mandibular second molar loss. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects of a traditional implant guide and digital implant guide in the early implant restoration of second molars. METHODS: The study included 35 patients with second molar loss randomly divided into two groups. Eighteen patients in the experimental group had an implant procedure using a computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital implant guide, and 17 patients in the control group had the procedure using a traditional film pressing implantation guide. Then, the surgical procedure was completed using the two different implant guides. At 3 months after surgery, four parameters including screw hole exit position, coronal deviation of the implant site, disease improvement rate, and clinical effects, which included marginal adaptation, anatomic form, marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, surface roughness, and secondary caries of the upper prosthesis were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The screw hole exit position in the experimental group was directed to the functional cusp of the opposite jaw, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of disease improvement and the clinical effect of the upper prosthesis between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the bilateral coronal deviation and deviation direction of implants in the two groups. The bilateral coronal deviation of the experimental group was smaller than that of the control group. CONCLUSION: The digital implant guide can effectively reduce the deviation of the screw hole and the upper prosthesis in the restoration of the second molar. The prosthesis used in the experimental group had a good clinical outcome, which provides a theoretical basis for the restoration of the posterior molar.