Insa Herklotz, Florian Beuer, Maria Bruhnke, Jan Zoske, Mats Wernfried, Heinrich Böse
{"title":"Accuracy of fully guided dental implant placement: A prospective clinical in-vivo investigation using intraoral scan data.","authors":"Insa Herklotz, Florian Beuer, Maria Bruhnke, Jan Zoske, Mats Wernfried, Heinrich Böse","doi":"10.3290/j.ijcd.b3762753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the planned implant position (PIP) with the transferred implant position (TIP) after fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Dental implant placements were planned using two different implant systems (Camlog Screw-Line [C-SL] and Straumann Bone Level Tapered [S-BLT]), and two different planning software programs (SMOP and coDiagnostiX). All implants were placed according to fully guided protocols, and intraoral scans were performed intraoperatively. For the comparison of PIP and TIP, scan data were imported to Geomagic Control X (GCX) software and accuracies were evaluated. Deviations were reported in a coordinate system (x- [mesiodistal], y- [vestibulo-oral], and z- [vertical] axis) at entry points and apices. Total deviations, including angular deviations, were calculated with GCX. For statistical analysis, the level of significance was set to P < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six patients received 26 implants. Mean 3D deviation at the implant's entry point was 0.61 mm ± 0.28 for C-SL and 0.63 mm ± 0.24 for S-BLT. For the implant's apex, mean 3D deviation of 0.96 mm ± 0.41 was documented for C-SL and 1.04 mm ± 0.34 for S-BLT. Mean angular deviation was 2.58 degrees ± 1.40 for C-SL and 2.89 degrees ± 1.12 for S-BLT. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between implant systems, but showed significant deviations regarding the z-axis, both at entry point and apex (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps provide accurate results. Due to significant vertical deviations, reevaluation of both drilling and insertion depths prior to implant installation should be considered. Maintenance of 1.5- to 2-mm safety distances to critical structures was confirmed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48666,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","volume":"26 2","pages":"137-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ijcd.b3762753","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To compare the planned implant position (PIP) with the transferred implant position (TIP) after fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps.
Materials and methods: Dental implant placements were planned using two different implant systems (Camlog Screw-Line [C-SL] and Straumann Bone Level Tapered [S-BLT]), and two different planning software programs (SMOP and coDiagnostiX). All implants were placed according to fully guided protocols, and intraoral scans were performed intraoperatively. For the comparison of PIP and TIP, scan data were imported to Geomagic Control X (GCX) software and accuracies were evaluated. Deviations were reported in a coordinate system (x- [mesiodistal], y- [vestibulo-oral], and z- [vertical] axis) at entry points and apices. Total deviations, including angular deviations, were calculated with GCX. For statistical analysis, the level of significance was set to P < 0.05.
Results: Twenty-six patients received 26 implants. Mean 3D deviation at the implant's entry point was 0.61 mm ± 0.28 for C-SL and 0.63 mm ± 0.24 for S-BLT. For the implant's apex, mean 3D deviation of 0.96 mm ± 0.41 was documented for C-SL and 1.04 mm ± 0.34 for S-BLT. Mean angular deviation was 2.58 degrees ± 1.40 for C-SL and 2.89 degrees ± 1.12 for S-BLT. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between implant systems, but showed significant deviations regarding the z-axis, both at entry point and apex (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: Fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps provide accurate results. Due to significant vertical deviations, reevaluation of both drilling and insertion depths prior to implant installation should be considered. Maintenance of 1.5- to 2-mm safety distances to critical structures was confirmed.
期刊介绍:
This journal explores the myriad innovations in the emerging field of computerized dentistry and how to integrate them into clinical practice. The bulk of the journal is devoted to the science of computer-assisted dentistry, with research articles and clinical reports on all aspects of computer-based diagnostic and therapeutic applications, with special emphasis placed on CAD/CAM and image-processing systems. Articles also address the use of computer-based communication to support patient care, assess the quality of care, and enhance clinical decision making. The journal is presented in a bilingual format, with each issue offering three types of articles: science-based, application-based, and national society reports.