C Monaco1, A Arena2, L Corsaletti3, V Santomauro4, P Venezia5, R Cavalcanti6, A Di Fiore7, G Zucchelli8. 1. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: carlo.monaco2@unibo.it. 2. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: antonio.arena3@unibo.it. 3. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: leonardo.corsaletti@gmail.com. 4. Private practice, Battipaglia (SA), Italy. Electronic address: santomaurovincenzo@virgilio.it. 5. Private practice, Bari, Italy. Electronic address: pierovenezia@gmail.com. 6. Private practice, Bari, Italy. Electronic address: dr.lello@studiocavalcantivenezia.it. 7. Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: adolfo.difiore@unipd.it. 8. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.zucchelli@unibo.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the 2D and 3D positional accuracy of four guided surgical protocols using an analysis of linear and angular deviations. METHODS: DICOM and .STLs files obtained from a CBCT and a digital impression were superimposed with software to plan implant position. Fifty-six patients were subdivided into 4 groups: FGA group (template support [Ts]: teeth [T]; bed preparation [Bp]: fully guided [FG]; implant insertion [Ii]: 3D template [3Dt]; device [D]: manual adapter [MA], FGM group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: fully guided mounter [FGM]), PG group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: manual; D: none) and MS group (Ts: mucosa; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: FGM). The position of 120 implants was assessed by superimposing the planned and final position recorded with a digital impression. RESULTS: In FGA group, 3D deviations were 0.92 ± 0.52 mm at the implant head and 1.14 ± 0.54 mm at the apex, and the angular deviation (ang. dev.) was 2.45 ± 1.24°. In FGM group, were 0.911 ± 0.44 mm (head) and 1.11 ± 0.54 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 2.73 ± 1.96°. In PG group, were 0.95 ± 0.47 mm (head) and 1.17 ± 0.488 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 3.71 ± 1.67°. In MS group, were 1.15 ± 0.45 mm (head) and 1.42 ± 0.45 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 4.19 ± 2.62°. Ang. dev. of MS group was different from the other groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Guided surgery showed a sufficient accuracy.
PURPOSE: To compare the 2D and 3D positional accuracy of four guided surgical protocols using an analysis of linear and angular deviations. METHODS: DICOM and .STLs files obtained from a CBCT and a digital impression were superimposed with software to plan implant position. Fifty-six patients were subdivided into 4 groups: FGA group (template support [Ts]: teeth [T]; bed preparation [Bp]: fully guided [FG]; implant insertion [Ii]: 3D template [3Dt]; device [D]: manual adapter [MA], FGM group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: fully guided mounter [FGM]), PG group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: manual; D: none) and MS group (Ts: mucosa; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: FGM). The position of 120 implants was assessed by superimposing the planned and final position recorded with a digital impression. RESULTS: In FGA group, 3D deviations were 0.92 ± 0.52 mm at the implant head and 1.14 ± 0.54 mm at the apex, and the angular deviation (ang. dev.) was 2.45 ± 1.24°. In FGM group, were 0.911 ± 0.44 mm (head) and 1.11 ± 0.54 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 2.73 ± 1.96°. In PG group, were 0.95 ± 0.47 mm (head) and 1.17 ± 0.488 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 3.71 ± 1.67°. In MS group, were 1.15 ± 0.45 mm (head) and 1.42 ± 0.45 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 4.19 ± 2.62°. Ang. dev. of MS group was different from the other groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Guided surgery showed a sufficient accuracy.
Authors: Alessio Franchina; Luigi V Stefanelli; Fabio Maltese; George A Mandelaris; Alessandro Vantaggiato; Michele Pagliarulo; Nicola Pranno; Edoardo Brauner; Francesca De Angelis; Stefano Di Carlo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 3.390