Kristian Kniha1, Maximilian Brandt2, Anna Bock1, Ali Modabber2, Andreas Prescher3, Frank Hölzle1, Golamreza Danesh4, Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich5. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 2. Private practice for Orthodontics, Blumenstraße 29, 73728, Esslingen, Germany. 3. Medical Faculty of RWTH-Aachen, Institute of Molecular and Cellular Anatomy, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 4. Department of Orthodontics, University of Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 44, 58455, Witten, Germany. 5. Department of Orthodontics, University of Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 44, 58455, Witten, Germany. stephan.moehlhenrich@uni-wh.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of fully guided orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) placements supported by tooth- (TBGs) or gingiva-borne silicone guides (GBGs) based on virtually superimposed lateral cephalograms on virtual plaster models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalograms and corresponding plaster models were virtually superimposed for the planning of OMI positions; fully guided TBGs and GBGs were fabricated (each, n = 10). A total of 40 OMIs were inserted in a paramedian position into the palate of 20 human cadavers. Postoperative cone-beam computer tomographies (CBCTs) were carried out, and an accuracy evaluation was performed by comparing preoperative planning models and postoperative CBCTs. Deviations of the axis, tip, centre of the shoulder and vertical position of each of the implants were evaluated. Furthermore, the transfer accuracy measured by postoperative CBCT scans were compared with the accuracy determined using an intraoral scanner. RESULTS: A significant deviation between TBGs (2.81° SD 2.69) and GBGs (6.22° SD 4.26) regarding implant angulation was evaluated (p = 0.005). Implant tip and implant shoulder deviations revealed no statistical differences between the guides. Accuracy values of oral scans regarding vertical deviations were significantly more inaccurate when compared with CBCTs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of an OMI position can be significantly increased by using a guide extension over the teeth. Vertical implant positions presented the lowest deviations. Postoperative oral scans and CBCTs represent diverging accuracy measurements when compared with virtual planning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Users must keep in mind that despite virtual planning deviations, inaccuracies of a few millimetres may occur.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of fully guided orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) placements supported by tooth- (TBGs) or gingiva-borne silicone guides (GBGs) based on virtually superimposed lateral cephalograms on virtual plaster models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalograms and corresponding plaster models were virtually superimposed for the planning of OMI positions; fully guided TBGs and GBGs were fabricated (each, n = 10). A total of 40 OMIs were inserted in a paramedian position into the palate of 20 human cadavers. Postoperative cone-beam computer tomographies (CBCTs) were carried out, and an accuracy evaluation was performed by comparing preoperative planning models and postoperative CBCTs. Deviations of the axis, tip, centre of the shoulder and vertical position of each of the implants were evaluated. Furthermore, the transfer accuracy measured by postoperative CBCT scans were compared with the accuracy determined using an intraoral scanner. RESULTS: A significant deviation between TBGs (2.81° SD 2.69) and GBGs (6.22° SD 4.26) regarding implant angulation was evaluated (p = 0.005). Implant tip and implant shoulder deviations revealed no statistical differences between the guides. Accuracy values of oral scans regarding vertical deviations were significantly more inaccurate when compared with CBCTs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of an OMI position can be significantly increased by using a guide extension over the teeth. Vertical implant positions presented the lowest deviations. Postoperative oral scans and CBCTs represent diverging accuracy measurements when compared with virtual planning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Users must keep in mind that despite virtual planning deviations, inaccuracies of a few millimetres may occur.