Literature DB >> 35712394

Surgical Stent Guided Versus Conventional Method of Implant Placement.

Anik Sarkar1, Md Mahbubul Hoda1, Rayan Malick1, Anand Kumar1.   

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the surgical accuracy and efficiency of endo-osseous implant placement using a conventional method and when placed using a custom surgical guide. Materials and methods: The study was carried out in a case control design on 20 patients aged between 15 years and 60 years. In the study group (n = 10) the implants were placed with the help of a surgical stent, while in the control group (n = 10) implants were placed in a conventional manner (without surgical stent) planned only with CBCT scan. The same surgeon placed the implants in both the groups.
Results: Each patient was considered in terms of the number of implants received. Each planned and actual implant was compared in terms of the 8 quantitative variables, which were used to observe and compare the accuracy of the surgical guides and conventionally placed implants. Data were analysed by a single blinded statistician using statistical software (Graphpad Prism (Version 5)). The Microsoft excel and Student T test for parametric data and Chi-square test for categorical data were used to observe significant differences between the 2 study groups. The nonparametric Chi-Square test revealed a statistically significant difference between surgical stent guided and conventional surgery in terms of buccal and lingual/palatal cortical plate to implant deviation, adjacent tooth to implant deviation, and mesiodistal angular deviation, whereas the differences between the marginal bone loss deviation, stability deviation, pain and swelling deviation, treatment time and number of sessions deviation, satisfaction deviation were not statistically significant.
Conclusion: From our study, we can conclude that guided surgery is essential for insertion of the implants regardless of the surgical technique. The success of the guided surgery depends on accuracy of the clinical and/or laboratorial steps of the virtual planning. Despite all the limitations and probability of errors encountered in our study, the guided surgery is superior in better positioning of implants. © The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endo-osseous implant; Guided surgery; Surgical stent

Year:  2022        PMID: 35712394      PMCID: PMC9192910          DOI: 10.1007/s12663-022-01702-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg        ISSN: 0972-8270


  10 in total

1.  Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models.

Authors:  J Y Choi; J H Choi; N K Kim; Y Kim; J K Lee; M K Kim; J H Lee; M J Kim
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.789

2.  Surgical templates in implant dentistry.

Authors:  Arun K Garg
Journal:  Dent Implantol Update       Date:  2006-06

Review 3.  Computerized tomography-based imaging and surgical guidance in oral implantology.

Authors:  Dov M Almog; B W Benson; L Wolfgang; N L Frederiksen; S L Brooks
Journal:  J Oral Implantol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.779

4.  Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study.

Authors:  N Van Assche; D van Steenberghe; M E Guerrero; E Hirsch; F Schutyser; M Quirynen; R Jacobs
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 8.728

5.  Transference of virtual planning and planning over biomedical prototypes for dental implant placement using guided surgery.

Authors:  Vinicius Nery Viegas; Vinicius Dutra; Rogério Miranda Pagnoncelli; Marília Gerhardt de Oliveira
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 6.  A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry.

Authors:  David Schneider; Pascal Marquardt; Marcel Zwahlen; Ronald E Jung
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.977

7.  Optimum placement of osseointegrated implants.

Authors:  M J Engelman; J A Sorensen; P Moy
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 3.426

8.  Effect of implant position on implant restoration design.

Authors:  R J Lazzara
Journal:  J Esthet Dent       Date:  1993

9.  Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Alessandro Pozzi; Marco Tallarico; Massimiliano Marchetti; Bruno Scarfò; Marco Esposito
Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.123

10.  Reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical (guide) templates.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Nickenig; Stephan Eitner
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 2.078

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.