Auxiliary Reflectance Sensor for Guided Surgery with Dental Implants: In Vitro Study
Objectives The aim of this research was to develop a sensor of approximation by reflectance for guided surgery with dental implants without flap detachment, and verify the effectiveness of this system.
Materials and Methods Ten models of total edentulous arches were divided into two groups. Two implants of 3.5 × 11.5 mm (NeoDent) were inserted in each model; in Group 1 (G1), a stereolithographic guide NeoGuide system was used. In Group 2 (G2), the experimental approximation sensor was used for the insertion of the implants. The evaluation of the results was performed by overlapping the virtual planning images with the tomographies of the models of the implants inserted.
Results There were no statistically significant differences between the guide and the sensor groups. The averages and standard deviations observed at the angulation of the guide was 4.15 (2.65 degrees) and 5.48 (2.85 degrees) at the sensor. The linear deviations at the cervical level were 0.002 (1.37) and 0.11 (1.47) mm and at the apical level 0.19 (1.28) and 0.21 (1.42) mm, respectively.
Conclusions The use of a guide is important for the stabilization of the drills; the greatest challenge is to control the apical position of the implants, especially in highly reabsorbed edges. The experimental sensor can become an auxiliary tool to the stereolithographic guides; however, several difficulties must still be overcome to recommend the use of a sensor.
Keywordscomputer-assisted surgery - dental implants - ambulatory surgical procedures - tomography - X-ray computed
13 March 2020 (online)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India
- 1 D’haese J, Van De Velde T, Elaut L, De Bruyn H. A prospective study on the accuracy of mucosally supported stereolithographic surgical guides in fully edentulous maxillae. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (02) 293-303
- 2 Vercruyssen M, Hultin M, Van Assche N, Svensson K, Naert I, Quirynen M. Guided surgery: accuracy and efficacy. Periodontol 2000 2014; 66 (01) 228-246
- 3 Brodala N. Flapless surgery and its effect on dental implant outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (Suppl) 118-125
- 4 Voulgarakis A, Strub JR, Att W. Outcomes of implants placed with three different flapless surgical procedures: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43 (04) 476-486
- 5 Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Ozdemir T. Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. J Periodontol 2010; 81 (01) 43-51
- 6 Rocci A, Rocci M, Scoccia A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J, Sennerby L. Immediate loading of maxillary prostheses using flapless surgery, implant placement in predetermined positions, and prefabricated provisional restorations. Part 2: a retrospective 10-year clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (05) 1199-1204
- 7 Novellino MM, Sesma N, Laganá DC, Ferrari G. Linear and angular deviations of implants placed in experimental casts with stereolithographic drill guides fixed by o’ring ortho implant devices. Braz Dent J 2013; 24 (04) 391-396
- 8 Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Marchetti M, Scarfò B, Esposito M. Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014; 7 (03) 229-242
- 9 Di Giacomo GA, Cury PR, de Araujo NS, Sendyk WR, Sendyk CL. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol 2005; 76 (04) 503-507
- 10 Zhou W, Liu Z, Song L, Kuo CL, Shafer DM. Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of guided implant surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2018; 18 (01) 28-40
- 11 Block MS, Emery RW. Static or dynamic navigation for implant placement-choosing the method of guidance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74 (02) 269-277
- 12 Seo C, Juodzbalys G. Accuracy of guided surgery via stereolithographic mucosa-supported surgical guide in implant surgery for edentulous patient: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2018; 9 (01) e1
- 13 Kang SH, Lee JW, Lim SH, Kim YH, Kim MK. Verification of the usability of a navigation method in dental implant surgery: in vitro comparison with the stereolithographic surgical guide template method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (07) 1530-1535
- 14 Wanschitz F, Birkfellner W, Figl M. et al. Computer-enhanced stereoscopic vision in a head-mounted display for oral implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13 (06) 610-616
- 15 Van de Velde T, Glor F, De Bruyn H. A model study on flapless implant placement by clinicians with a different experience level in implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19 (01) 66-72
- 16 Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Teughels W, Quirynen M. Depth and lateral deviations in guided implant surgery: an RCT comparing guided surgery with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (11) 1315-1320
- 17 Tatakis DN, Chien HH, Parashis AO. Guided implant surgery risks and their prevention. Periodontol 2000 2019; 81 (01) 194-208
- 18 Marlière DAA, Demètrio MS, Picinini LS, Oliveira RG, Netto HDMC. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery for dental implant placement in fully edentulous patients: a systematic review. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (01) 153-160
- 19 D’haese J, Van De Velde T, Elaut L, De Bruyn H. A prospective study on the accuracy of mucosally supported stereolithographic surgical guides in fully edentulous maxillae. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (02) 293-303