Johannes Spille1, Feilu Jin2, Christian Flörke3, Jörg Wiltfang3, Eleonore Behrens3, Yahya Açil3, Jürgen Lichtenstein3, Hendrik Naujokat3, Aydin Gülses3. 1. Christian Albrechts University, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany. johannesheinrich.spille@uksh.de. 2. Department of oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Medicine, 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 3. Christian Albrechts University, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows. METHODS: A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model. RESULTS: The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows. METHODS: A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model. RESULTS: The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Digital workflow; Implant system; Navigation
Authors: Caitlyn K Bell; Erik F Sahl; Yoon Jeong Kim; Dwight D Rice Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: M Siessegger; B T Schneider; R A Mischkowski; F Lazar; B Krug; B Klesper; J E Zöller Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: Luigi Canullo; Marco Tallarico; Sandro Radovanovic; Boris Delibasic; Ugo Covani; Mia Rakic Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Robert Stünkel; Alexander-Nicolai Zeller; Thomas Bohne; Florian Böhrnsen; Edris Wedi; David Raschke; Philipp Kauffmann Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2022-10-06
Authors: Xiaotong Wang; Eman Shaheen; Sohaib Shujaat; Jan Meeus; Paul Legrand; Pierre Lahoud; Maurício do Nascimento Gerhardt; Constantinus Politis; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2022-10-10