Chalermchai Ngamprasertkit1, Weerapan Aunmeungthong1, Pathawee Khongkhunthian2. 1. Center of Excellence for Dental Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Suthep, 50200, A. Muang, Thailand. 2. Center of Excellence for Dental Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Suthep, 50200, A. Muang, Thailand. pathaweek@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate and compare accuracy in position and inclination of a single-tooth implant placement using tooth-supported surgical drill guide (SDG) and surgical drill guide with implant insertion guide (SDIG) in fully digital workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty partially single edentulous patients were recruited. After randomization, participants were divided into 2 groups equally. The first group underwent implant placement through SDG only, while the second group was subjected to SDIG. All procedure proceeded under a fully digital workflow as the combination of digital scanning from an intraoral scanner, 3D radiographic images from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), implant planning software, and a 3D manufacturing machine. A post-operative CBCT was performed to compare the deviations (7 parameters) between planned and actual implant positions. RESULTS: The mean global deviations at the shoulder and apex were 0.74 ± 0.36 and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm, respectively in the SDG group and 0.48 ± 0.22 mm and 0.71 ± 0.31 mm, respectively in the SDIG group. Likewise, the other parameters in the SDIG group showed fewer deviations than SDG for all measurements. Statistically significant differences were indicated by all parameters except for the horizontal deviation at the implant shoulder (p < .05). CONCLUSION: In single-tooth implant placement with a tooth-supported guide using a computer-assisted (static) system with the SDIG could reduce deviations of actual implant position when compared with using SDG only. Besides, guided implant surgery by fully digital workflow is a practical procedure and provides precise implant position regarding the prosthetic-driven concept.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate and compare accuracy in position and inclination of a single-tooth implant placement using tooth-supported surgical drill guide (SDG) and surgical drill guide with implant insertion guide (SDIG) in fully digital workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty partially single edentulous patients were recruited. After randomization, participants were divided into 2 groups equally. The first group underwent implant placement through SDG only, while the second group was subjected to SDIG. All procedure proceeded under a fully digital workflow as the combination of digital scanning from an intraoral scanner, 3D radiographic images from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), implant planning software, and a 3D manufacturing machine. A post-operative CBCT was performed to compare the deviations (7 parameters) between planned and actual implant positions. RESULTS: The mean global deviations at the shoulder and apex were 0.74 ± 0.36 and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm, respectively in the SDG group and 0.48 ± 0.22 mm and 0.71 ± 0.31 mm, respectively in the SDIG group. Likewise, the other parameters in the SDIG group showed fewer deviations than SDG for all measurements. Statistically significant differences were indicated by all parameters except for the horizontal deviation at the implant shoulder (p < .05). CONCLUSION: In single-tooth implant placement with a tooth-supported guide using a computer-assisted (static) system with the SDIG could reduce deviations of actual implant position when compared with using SDG only. Besides, guided implant surgery by fully digital workflow is a practical procedure and provides precise implant position regarding the prosthetic-driven concept.
Authors: Susanne Platzer; Georg Bertha; Alexander Heschl; Walther A Wegscheider; Martin Lorenzoni Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Ronald E Jung; David Schneider; Jeffrey Ganeles; Daniel Wismeijer; Marcel Zwahlen; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ali Tahmaseb Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Daniel van Steenberghe; Ignace Naert; Matts Andersson; Izidor Brajnovic; Johan Van Cleynenbreugel; Paul Suetens Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.804