Literature DB >> 24341829

Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement Using CBCT-Derived Mucosa-Supported Stereolithographic Template.

Yi Sun1,2, Heinz-Theo Luebbers3, Jimoh Olubanwo Agbaje1,4, Serge Schepers1,5, Constantinus Politis2,4, Sarah Van Slycke1, Luc Vrielinck1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the present in vivo study was to evaluate whether a difference exists between the maxilla and the mandible regarding the precision of implant placement utilizing a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived mucosa-supported stereolithographic (SLA) template.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty implants (44 maxilla, 36 mandible) were placed in 18 fully edentulous jaws (10 maxillas, eight mandibles) using a mucosa-supported SLA surgical template. A voxel-based registration technique was applied to match the postoperative and preoperative CBCT scans.
RESULTS: Vertical deviation (p = .026) at the implant hex and angular deviation (p = .0188) were significantly lower in the maxilla than in the mandible. The global linear deviation and lateral deviation at the implant hex were not significantly different. At the implant apex, the average maximum vertical deviation was within 1 mm (0.1-4.6 mm). The average maximum lateral deviation was 1.8 mm (0.9-5.5 mm) in the maxilla and 2.3 mm (0.5-5.5 mm) in the mandible when a 15-mm-long implant was placed.
CONCLUSIONS: When using CBCT-derived mucosa-supported SLA templates, clinicians should be aware of differences in the angular deviation of the implants in the mandible and maxilla. The average maximum linear deviation should be considered as a safety margin at the implant apex.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy; computer-assisted; cone beam computed tomography; dental implant; stereolithographic; surgical template

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24341829     DOI: 10.1111/cid.12189

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  5 in total

Review 1.  3D Printing and Virtual Surgical Planning in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

Authors:  Adeeb Zoabi; Idan Redenski; Daniel Oren; Adi Kasem; Asaf Zigron; Shadi Daoud; Liad Moskovich; Fares Kablan; Samer Srouji
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-24       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Utilising the nasal aperture for template stabilisation for guided surgery in the atrophic maxilla.

Authors:  Pieter Onclin; Joep Kraeima; Bram B J Merema; Henny J A Meijer; Arjan Vissink; Gerry M Raghoebar
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2020-06-26

Review 3.  Additive Manufactured Polymers in Dentistry, Current State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives-A Review.

Authors:  Codruta Victoria Tigmeanu; Lavinia Cosmina Ardelean; Laura-Cristina Rusu; Meda-Lavinia Negrutiu
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-03       Impact factor: 4.967

4.  Fully Digital Workflow for Planning Static Guided Implant Surgery: A Prospective Accuracy Study.

Authors:  Chia-Cheng Lin; Ching-Zong Wu; Mao-Suan Huang; Chiung-Fang Huang; Hsin-Chung Cheng; Dayen Peter Wang
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Accuracy of implant surgical guides fabricated using computer numerical control milling for edentulous jaws: a pilot clinical trial.

Authors:  Jinyou Chai; Xiaoqian Liu; Ramona Schweyen; Jürgen Setz; Shaoxia Pan; Jianzhang Liu; Yongsheng Zhou
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 2.757

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.