Hans-Joachim Nickenig1, Stephan Eitner. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Glückstr. 11, G-91054 Erlangen, Germany. dr.a.nickenig@t-online.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone-beam CT data and surgical guide templates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 102 patients (250 implants, 55.4% mandibular; mean patient age, 40.4 years) who had undergone implant treatment therapy in an armed forces dental clinic (Cologne, Germany) between July 1, 2005 and December 1, 2005. They were treated with a system that allows transfer of virtual planning to surgical guide templates. RESULTS: Only in eight cases the surgical guides were not used because a delayed implant placement was necessary. In four posterior mandibular cases, handling was limited because of reduced interocclusal distance, requiring 50% shortening of the drill guides. The predictability of implant size was high: only one implant was changed to a smaller diameter (because of insufficient bone). In all cases, critical anatomical structures were protected and no complications were detected in postoperative panoramic radiographs. In 58.1% (147) of the 250 implants, a flapless surgery plan was realized. CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical templates can be reliable for preoperative assessment of implant size, position, and anatomical complications. It is also indicative of cases amenable to flapless surgery.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone-beam CT data and surgical guide templates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 102 patients (250 implants, 55.4% mandibular; mean patient age, 40.4 years) who had undergone implant treatment therapy in an armed forces dental clinic (Cologne, Germany) between July 1, 2005 and December 1, 2005. They were treated with a system that allows transfer of virtual planning to surgical guide templates. RESULTS: Only in eight cases the surgical guides were not used because a delayed implant placement was necessary. In four posterior mandibular cases, handling was limited because of reduced interocclusal distance, requiring 50% shortening of the drill guides. The predictability of implant size was high: only one implant was changed to a smaller diameter (because of insufficient bone). In all cases, critical anatomical structures were protected and no complications were detected in postoperative panoramic radiographs. In 58.1% (147) of the 250 implants, a flapless surgery plan was realized. CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical templates can be reliable for preoperative assessment of implant size, position, and anatomical complications. It is also indicative of cases amenable to flapless surgery.