Jordi Gargallo-Albiol1,2, María José Zilleruelo-Pozo3, Ernest Lucas-Taulé3, Jesús Muñoz-Peñalver4, Daniel Paternostro-Betancourt3, Federico Hernandez-Alfaro3. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, C/JosepTrueta S/N, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, 08195, Barcelona, Spain. jgargallo@uic.es. 2. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. jgargallo@uic.es. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, C/JosepTrueta S/N, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, 08195, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Periodontics, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/Josep Trueta S/N, 08195, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A cohort prospective study was conducted to assess the three-dimensional positioning accuracy of the implant between pre-surgical and the final implant position using a static fully guided approach in the posterior area of the jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 implants (30 patients) were digitally analyzed after superimposing the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files obtained from the Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) pre- and post-implant placement. The software calculations included deviations at the implant shoulder and at the implant apex, global deviation (3D offset), and angle deviation. Statistical analysis was performed with α = 0.05. RESULTS: Considering the total number of implants, mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal mean deviations at the shoulder and implant apex were equal or below 0.21 ± 0.69 mm, and only the buccolingual mean deviation at the apex reached up to 0.67 ± 1.06 mm. The mesiodistal and apicocoronal deviations were not statistically significant at both the shoulder and apex levels of the implant. The mean total angular deviation was 5.62° ± 4.09. The main limitation of this surgical approach was the requirement for a wide mouth opening. CONCLUSIONS: Static fully guided surgery for dental implant placement exhibits minimum deviations respect to presurgical planning. The main limitation in the posterior areas is the requirement for a wide mouth opening. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Even with minimum deviations clinically acceptable, precautions and safety margins must be respected when using static full-guided surgery to place dental implants.
OBJECTIVE: A cohort prospective study was conducted to assess the three-dimensional positioning accuracy of the implant between pre-surgical and the final implant position using a static fully guided approach in the posterior area of the jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 implants (30 patients) were digitally analyzed after superimposing the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files obtained from the Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) pre- and post-implant placement. The software calculations included deviations at the implant shoulder and at the implant apex, global deviation (3D offset), and angle deviation. Statistical analysis was performed with α = 0.05. RESULTS: Considering the total number of implants, mesiodistal, buccolingual, and apicocoronal mean deviations at the shoulder and implant apex were equal or below 0.21 ± 0.69 mm, and only the buccolingual mean deviation at the apex reached up to 0.67 ± 1.06 mm. The mesiodistal and apicocoronal deviations were not statistically significant at both the shoulder and apex levels of the implant. The mean total angular deviation was 5.62° ± 4.09. The main limitation of this surgical approach was the requirement for a wide mouth opening. CONCLUSIONS: Static fully guided surgery for dental implant placement exhibits minimum deviations respect to presurgical planning. The main limitation in the posterior areas is the requirement for a wide mouth opening. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Even with minimum deviations clinically acceptable, precautions and safety margins must be respected when using static full-guided surgery to place dental implants.
Authors: Faris Younes; Aryan Eghbali; Thomas De Bruyckere; Roberto Cleymaet; Jan Cosyn Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Gréta Török; Péter Gombocz; Eszter Bognár; Péter Nagy; Elek Dinya; Barbara Kispélyi; Péter Hermann Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 2.757