Wei Geng1, Changying Liu2, Yucheng Su3, Jun Li2, Yanmin Zhou4. 1. Department of Dental Implantology Centre, Stomatology Hospital of Jilin University Changchun 130021, Jilin Province, China ; Department of Dental Implantology Centre, School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University Beijing 100050, China. 2. Department of Dental Implantology Centre, School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University Beijing 100050, China. 3. Department of Dental Implantology of Peking Union Medical College Hospital Beijing 100032, China. 4. Department of Dental Implantology Centre, Stomatology Hospital of Jilin University Changchun 130021, Jilin Province, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of implants placed using different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical guides, including partially guided and totally guided templates, and determine the accuracy of these guides Materials and methods: In total, 111 implants were placed in 24 patients using CAD/CAM surgical guides. After implant insertion, the positions and angulations of the placed implants relative to those of the planned ones were determined using special software that matched pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) images, and deviations were calculated and compared between the different guides and templates. RESULTS: The mean angular deviations were 1.72 ± 1.67 and 2.71 ± 2.58, the mean deviations in position at the neck were 0.27 ± 0.24 and 0.69 ± 0.66 mm, the mean deviations in position at the apex were 0.37 ± 0.35 and 0.94 ± 0.75 mm, and the mean depth deviations were 0.32 ± 0.32 and 0.51 ± 0.48 mm with tooth- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides, respectively (P < .05 for all). The mean distance deviations when partially guided (29 implants) and totally guided templates (30 implants) were used were 0.54 ± 0.50 mm and 0.89 ± 0.78 mm, respectively, at the neck and 1.10 ± 0.85 mm and 0.81 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, at the apex, with corresponding mean angular deviations of 2.56 ± 2.23° and 2.90 ± 3.0° (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-supported surgical guides may be more accurate than mucosa-supported guides, while both partially and totally guided templates can simplify surgery and aid in optimal implant placement.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of implants placed using different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical guides, including partially guided and totally guided templates, and determine the accuracy of these guides Materials and methods: In total, 111 implants were placed in 24 patients using CAD/CAM surgical guides. After implant insertion, the positions and angulations of the placed implants relative to those of the planned ones were determined using special software that matched pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) images, and deviations were calculated and compared between the different guides and templates. RESULTS: The mean angular deviations were 1.72 ± 1.67 and 2.71 ± 2.58, the mean deviations in position at the neck were 0.27 ± 0.24 and 0.69 ± 0.66 mm, the mean deviations in position at the apex were 0.37 ± 0.35 and 0.94 ± 0.75 mm, and the mean depth deviations were 0.32 ± 0.32 and 0.51 ± 0.48 mm with tooth- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides, respectively (P < .05 for all). The mean distance deviations when partially guided (29 implants) and totally guided templates (30 implants) were used were 0.54 ± 0.50 mm and 0.89 ± 0.78 mm, respectively, at the neck and 1.10 ± 0.85 mm and 0.81 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, at the apex, with corresponding mean angular deviations of 2.56 ± 2.23° and 2.90 ± 3.0° (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-supported surgical guides may be more accurate than mucosa-supported guides, while both partially and totally guided templates can simplify surgery and aid in optimal implant placement.
Authors: George A Mandelaris; Alan L Rosenfeld; Samantha D King; Marc L Nevins Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.840
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: Chanseop Park; Ariel J Raigrodski; Jacob Rosen; Charles Spiekerman; Robert M London Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Oguz Ozan; Ilser Turkyilmaz; Ahmet Ersan Ersoy; Edwin A McGlumphy; Stephen F Rosenstiel Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 1.895
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