V Laederach1, K Mukaddam1, M Payer2, A Filippi1, S Kühl1. 1. Department of Oral Surgery, Oral Radiology and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Oral Surgery and Radiology, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the deviation of different systems for Guided Implant Surgery (GIS) related to the specific tolerance between drills and sleeves. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four different systems for GIS and their appropriate sleeves were used: Camlog Guide (CG), Straumann Guided Surgery (SG), SIC Guide (SIG), and NobelGuide (NG). System-appropriate metal sleeves were inserted into plexiglass boxes, and guided drilling procedure was performed (i) holding the drills in the most centric position of the sleeves and (ii) applying forces eccentrically. Digital microscope images of the plexiglass boxes were taken and axial deviations were calculated based on the Pythagorean Theorem, whereas coronal and apical deviations were measured with a corresponding software-device and calculated by subtracting the measured deviations from the original diameter of the drills. Statistically significant differences between centric and eccentric drilling were determined applying the t-test for independent data. RESULTS: The axial deviation ranged from 0° (SG) to 5.64° (CG). The apical deviations varied between 0.01 mm (SIG) and 3.2 mm (NG) and the coronal deviations ranged from 0.01 mm (SIG) to 1.60 mm (NG). In terms of angular deviation, there were statistically significant differences between centric and eccentric drilling for all four systems. Coronal and apical deviations, showed no statistical significance between centric and eccentric drilling for SIG and NG, in contrast to CG and SG. CONCLUSIONS: The clinician may have considerable impact on the accuracy of GIS when applying eccentric forces.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the deviation of different systems for Guided Implant Surgery (GIS) related to the specific tolerance between drills and sleeves. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four different systems for GIS and their appropriate sleeves were used: Camlog Guide (CG), Straumann Guided Surgery (SG), SIC Guide (SIG), and NobelGuide (NG). System-appropriate metal sleeves were inserted into plexiglass boxes, and guided drilling procedure was performed (i) holding the drills in the most centric position of the sleeves and (ii) applying forces eccentrically. Digital microscope images of the plexiglass boxes were taken and axial deviations were calculated based on the Pythagorean Theorem, whereas coronal and apical deviations were measured with a corresponding software-device and calculated by subtracting the measured deviations from the original diameter of the drills. Statistically significant differences between centric and eccentric drilling were determined applying the t-test for independent data. RESULTS: The axial deviation ranged from 0° (SG) to 5.64° (CG). The apical deviations varied between 0.01 mm (SIG) and 3.2 mm (NG) and the coronal deviations ranged from 0.01 mm (SIG) to 1.60 mm (NG). In terms of angular deviation, there were statistically significant differences between centric and eccentric drilling for all four systems. Coronal and apical deviations, showed no statistical significance between centric and eccentric drilling for SIG and NG, in contrast to CG and SG. CONCLUSIONS: The clinician may have considerable impact on the accuracy of GIS when applying eccentric forces.