Kitichai Rungcharassaeng1, Joseph M Caruso2, Joseph Y K Kan3, Filip Schutyser4, Tiny Boumans5. 1. Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, Calif. Electronic address: drkit09@gmail.com. 2. Professor and Chair, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, Calif. 3. Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, Calif. 4. Global Head, Software Development, Nobel Biocare c/o Medicim NV, Mechelen, Belgium. 5. Application Specialist, Guided Surgery Center, Nobel Biocare c/o Medicim NV, Mechelen, Belgium.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Even though high-precision technologies have been used in computer-guided implant surgery, studies have shown that linear and angular deviations between the planned and placed implants can be expected. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of operator experience on the accuracy of implant placement with a computer-guided surgery protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten surgically experienced and 10 surgically inexperienced operators participated in this study. Each operator placed 1 dental implant (Replace Select) on the partially edentulous mandibular model that had been planned with software by following a computer-guided surgery (NobelGuide) protocol. Three-dimensional information of the planned and placed implants were then superimposed. The horizontal and vertical linear deviations at both the apex and platform levels and the angular deviation were measured and compared between the experienced and inexperienced groups with the independent t test with Bonferroni adjustment (α=.01). The magnitude and direction of the horizontal deviations were also measured and recorded. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the angular and linear deviations between the 2 groups (P>.01). Although not statistically significant (P>.01), the amount of vertical deviation in the coronal direction of the implants placed by the inexperienced operators was about twice that placed by the experienced operators. Overall, buccal apical deviations were most frequent and of the highest magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: When a computer-guided protocol was used, the accuracy of the vertical dimension (depth of implant placement) was most influenced by the operator's level of experience.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Even though high-precision technologies have been used in computer-guided implant surgery, studies have shown that linear and angular deviations between the planned and placed implants can be expected. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of operator experience on the accuracy of implant placement with a computer-guided surgery protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten surgically experienced and 10 surgically inexperienced operators participated in this study. Each operator placed 1 dental implant (Replace Select) on the partially edentulous mandibular model that had been planned with software by following a computer-guided surgery (NobelGuide) protocol. Three-dimensional information of the planned and placed implants were then superimposed. The horizontal and vertical linear deviations at both the apex and platform levels and the angular deviation were measured and compared between the experienced and inexperienced groups with the independent t test with Bonferroni adjustment (α=.01). The magnitude and direction of the horizontal deviations were also measured and recorded. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the angular and linear deviations between the 2 groups (P>.01). Although not statistically significant (P>.01), the amount of vertical deviation in the coronal direction of the implants placed by the inexperienced operators was about twice that placed by the experienced operators. Overall, buccal apical deviations were most frequent and of the highest magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: When a computer-guided protocol was used, the accuracy of the vertical dimension (depth of implant placement) was most influenced by the operator's level of experience.
Authors: N Van Assche; D van Steenberghe; M E Guerrero; E Hirsch; F Schutyser; M Quirynen; R Jacobs Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Daniel van Steenberghe; Ignace Naert; Matts Andersson; Izidor Brajnovic; Johan Van Cleynenbreugel; Paul Suetens Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Giovanni A P Di Giacomo; Patricia R Cury; Ney Soares de Araujo; Wilson R Sendyk; Claudio L Sendyk Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Marieke A P Filius; Joep Kraeima; Arjan Vissink; Krista I Janssen; Gerry M Raghoebar; Anita Visser Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2017-07-08