OBJECTIVES: This prospective study analyzed the accuracy of implant placement with mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides, executed by inexperienced surgeons supervised by an experienced colleague. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For the accuracy analysis, 75 OsseoSpeed implants™, placed in 17 fully edentulous jaws (16 patients) using a mucosa-supported stereolithographic guide (IMPLANT SAFE Guide, DENTSPLY Implants) and the Facilitate™ protocol, were included. DICOM images of the pre-surgical planning and the post-surgical CBCT were matched using the Mimics(®) software (Materialise Dental). These data were compared with the data (12 jaws, 52 implants) of an experienced surgeon (Vercruyssen et al. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2014; doi:10.1111/jcpe.12231). RESULTS: The global deviation at the coronal and apical point was 0.9 mm (SD 0.5) and 1.1 mm (SD 0.5), respectively. Depth deviations were 0.5 mm (SD 0.5) and 1.1 mm (SD 0.5), respectively, and the angular deviation was 2.8° (SD 1.5°). These deviations were statistically not inferior to the deviations of the experienced surgeon and also within the range of deviations reported by several systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study and for the above-mentioned surgical protocol, inexperience of the surgeon had no influence on the accuracy of implant placement in fully edentulous jaws, when all steps needed for the procedure are supervised by experienced dentists.
OBJECTIVES: This prospective study analyzed the accuracy of implant placement with mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides, executed by inexperienced surgeons supervised by an experienced colleague. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For the accuracy analysis, 75 OsseoSpeed implants™, placed in 17 fully edentulous jaws (16 patients) using a mucosa-supported stereolithographic guide (IMPLANT SAFE Guide, DENTSPLY Implants) and the Facilitate™ protocol, were included. DICOM images of the pre-surgical planning and the post-surgical CBCT were matched using the Mimics(®) software (Materialise Dental). These data were compared with the data (12 jaws, 52 implants) of an experienced surgeon (Vercruyssen et al. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2014; doi:10.1111/jcpe.12231). RESULTS: The global deviation at the coronal and apical point was 0.9 mm (SD 0.5) and 1.1 mm (SD 0.5), respectively. Depth deviations were 0.5 mm (SD 0.5) and 1.1 mm (SD 0.5), respectively, and the angular deviation was 2.8° (SD 1.5°). These deviations were statistically not inferior to the deviations of the experienced surgeon and also within the range of deviations reported by several systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study and for the above-mentioned surgical protocol, inexperience of the surgeon had no influence on the accuracy of implant placement in fully edentulous jaws, when all steps needed for the procedure are supervised by experienced dentists.
Authors: Lukas Postl; Thomas Mücke; Stefan Hunger; Sabina Noreen Wuersching; Svenia Holberg; Oliver Bissinger; Rainer Burgkart; Michael Malek; Stefan Krennmair Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Lukas Postl; Thomas Mücke; Stefan Hunger; Oliver Bissinger; Michael Malek; Svenia Holberg; Rainer Burgkart; Stefan Krennmair Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.175