Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the immediate-loading protocol, in single restorations in the esthetic zone, by comparing the digital workflow in a test group (TG) vs. the analogical workflow in a control group (CG). A total of 50 patients were enrolled, requiring single hopeless tooth extraction. Twenty-five patients (TG) were randomly assigned to the immediate-loading protocol using the digital workflow, and twenty-five patients (CG) were assigned to the conventional workflow. Clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated at the time of implant insertion (baseline) and after 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A clinician blind to conditions measured the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), as well as patient satisfaction. At 12-month follow-up, a cumulative survival rate of 100% was reported for all implants. No failures or biological complications were observed. No statistically significant differences were detected in the mean values of marginal bone loss and PES between the TG (0.12 ± 0.66 mm for MBL, 7.75 ± 0.89 for PES) and the CG (0.15 ± 0.54 mm for MBL, 7.50 ± 0.89 for PES). In 11 cases of TG, and 10 cases of CG, a one-year follow-up period showed an increased marginal bone level. No statistically significant differences were found in the mean total PES between test (7.75 ± 0.89) and control (7.5 ± 0.81) conditions. Furthermore, a customer satisfaction survey showed that patients preferred the digital workflow over the conventional workflow procedure (97.6 ± 4.3 vs. 69.2 ± 13.8). Digital workflow was more time-efficient than conventional workflow (97.2 ± 7.3 vs. 81.2 ± 11.3). Within the limitations of this study, no statistically significant differences were found between digital and traditional workflow.