PURPOSE: Computer-aided oral implant surgery offers several advantages over the traditional approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vivo accuracy of computer-aided, template-guided oral implant surgery by comparing the three-dimensional positions of planned and placed implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral implant therapy was performed in two treatment centers on eligible patients using computerized tomography (CT)-based software planning and computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture stereolithographic templates. A second CT scan was obtained after surgery. Preoperative and postoperative CT images were compared (planned vs actual implant positions), and the accuracy of this type of image-guided therapy was assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five adult patients were included in this retrospective study; 17 (11 partially and eight fully edentulous arches) were treated in center 1, and eight (six partially and two fully edentulous arches) in center 2. Of the 104 implants inserted with the computer-aided method, 100 integrated, giving a cumulative survival rate of 96% (mean follow-up, 36 months). There were no major surgical complications. With regard to accuracy, 89 implants were available for comparison; mean lateral deviations at the coronal and apical ends of the implants were 1.4 mm and 1.6 mm, respectively. Mean depth deviation was 1.1 mm and mean angular deviation was 7.9 degrees. There was a statistically significant correlation in the accuracy of any implants placed with the same guide. There was no difference in accuracy data from the two private centers; nor could a learning curve be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon this clinical study of 25 patients, the following observations were made: (1) computer-aided oral implant surgery used in two treatment centers provided a high likelihood (96%) of implant survival, and (2) deviations from planned implant positions existed in the coronal and apical portions of the implants as well as with implant angulation. Mean deviations were less than 2 mm in any direction and less than 8 degrees.
PURPOSE: Computer-aided oral implant surgery offers several advantages over the traditional approach. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vivo accuracy of computer-aided, template-guided oral implant surgery by comparing the three-dimensional positions of planned and placed implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral implant therapy was performed in two treatment centers on eligible patients using computerized tomography (CT)-based software planning and computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture stereolithographic templates. A second CT scan was obtained after surgery. Preoperative and postoperative CT images were compared (planned vs actual implant positions), and the accuracy of this type of image-guided therapy was assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five adult patients were included in this retrospective study; 17 (11 partially and eight fully edentulous arches) were treated in center 1, and eight (six partially and two fully edentulous arches) in center 2. Of the 104 implants inserted with the computer-aided method, 100 integrated, giving a cumulative survival rate of 96% (mean follow-up, 36 months). There were no major surgical complications. With regard to accuracy, 89 implants were available for comparison; mean lateral deviations at the coronal and apical ends of the implants were 1.4 mm and 1.6 mm, respectively. Mean depth deviation was 1.1 mm and mean angular deviation was 7.9 degrees. There was a statistically significant correlation in the accuracy of any implants placed with the same guide. There was no difference in accuracy data from the two private centers; nor could a learning curve be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon this clinical study of 25 patients, the following observations were made: (1) computer-aided oral implant surgery used in two treatment centers provided a high likelihood (96%) of implant survival, and (2) deviations from planned implant positions existed in the coronal and apical portions of the implants as well as with implant angulation. Mean deviations were less than 2 mm in any direction and less than 8 degrees.
Authors: Nadine Marheineke; Uta Scherer; Martin Rücker; Constantin von See; Björn Rahlf; Nils-Claudius Gellrich; Marcus Stoetzer Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-12-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mohammed Zaheer Kola; Altaf H Shah; Hesham S Khalil; Ahmed Mahmoud Rabah; Nehad Mohammed H Harby; Seham Ali Sabra; Deepti Raghav Journal: Niger J Surg Date: 2015 Jan-Jun