The lab has made a printed surgical guide for a specific case. The designated drill is easily related to the guide and provides near-perfect placement of the implant.
Advantages of guided implant placement
• If all the steps in the described procedure above are correct, the implant placement is almost foolproof, accurate, fast, nonthreatening to the clinician, and predictable.
• Guided placement produces confidence for the clinician that the best technique has been accomplished, and the implant is in the most appropriate location.
Limitations of guided implant placement
• An absolutely accurate impression (conventional or virtual) is mandatory.
• An absolutely accurate stone cast or virtual model is mandatory.
• Guides are no more accurate than the impressions and casts/models sent to the lab.
• Significant time involvement is required to plan the guide, including communicating with the lab that makes the guide.
• There is a cost for making the guide, although some third-party payers will provide some financial benefit.
• When using most labs, there is a delay while the guide is being made.
Current typical technique for freehand implant placement
1. Make a diagnostic appointment with the patient and obtain his or her agreement for placing the implant(s).
2. Make an impression, either a conventional one or a scan for a virtual model. Most dentists make a typical conventional diagnostic impression.
3. If you made a conventional impression, pour and trim the cast.
4. Analyze the casts and the radiographs-panoramic, periapical, and preferably cone beam.
5. Determine the implant type, brand, diameter, length, and apparent bone density for the sites involved.
6. Place the implant using the freehand technique described later in this article.
Advantages of freehand implant placement
• Communication time with laboratory about the guide is eliminated.
• The dentist saves significant time by not having to make the guide.
• Depending on your clinical schedule, there is no major wait before implant placement.
• Cost of making the guide is eliminated.
Limitations of freehand implant placement
• You are required to make clinical judgments on implant placement based on visualizing the clinical situation from the information provided by the casts and radiographs.
• Placement of the implants usually requires significantly more time than with the guided technique, since you must think and plan while placing the implants.
• Paralleling numerous implants is more difficult using the freehand technique.
• The technique is not as predictable as adequately accomplished guided placement.
• Most clinicians do not have as much confidence using the freehand technique as when placing implants with a guide.
Where are we when comparing the two implant-placement procedures? I have placed implants for more than 30 years, and I have communicated with many who have had similar experiences. With that experience, I have the following current opinions relative to the two procedures. My opinion may change as guided placement becomes simpler and less expensive, and as cone beam becomes more dominant in the profession.
Placing single implants in healthy patients who have adequate bone:
• This situation accounts for the vast majority of implants placed currently.
• The freehand technique is the most used and probably the most appropriate at this time.
• The following freehand technique is simple:
1. From a facial orientation, place the implant osteotomies in the center of the edentulous space from a mesial and distal orientation, using periapical radiographs to verify the parallelism and appropriate distance from the adjacent teeth (figure 3).
2. In the facial-lingual orientation, locate the osteotomies in the center of the ridge and parallel with the adjacent teeth. Use finger contact on the facial and lingual of the ridge while making the drill cuts. If you feel extra vibration on one or the other side of the ridge, reorient the drill appropriately (figures 4-7).
Figure 3: It is easy to center the implant osteotomy between the two adjacent teeth using your own clinical judgment and periapical radiographs.