CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(01): 039-045
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718791
Original Article

Assessment of Deviations of Implants Installed with Prototyped Surgical Guide and Conventional Guide: In Vitro Study

João Marcelo Meireles Rodrigues
1   Department of Health Sciences, Postgraduation Program in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Araraquara, UNIARA, Araraquara, Sao Paulo, Brazil
,
Pâmela Leticia Santos
1   Department of Health Sciences, Postgraduation Program in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Araraquara, UNIARA, Araraquara, Sao Paulo, Brazil
,
Gustavo Mendonça
2   Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
,
Ana Paula de Souza Faloni
1   Department of Health Sciences, Postgraduation Program in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Araraquara, UNIARA, Araraquara, Sao Paulo, Brazil
,
Livia Sertori Finoti
3   Center for Applied Genomics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Rogério Margonar
1   Department of Health Sciences, Postgraduation Program in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Araraquara, UNIARA, Araraquara, Sao Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Objective The study aimed to assess the angular and linear deviations of implants installed in mannequins aided by surgical guides produced with the techniques of dual tomography (DT), model-based tomography (MT), and nonprototyped guide.

Materials and Methods Implants were installed in mannequins of a partially edentulous maxilla and divided into three groups: Group C (n = 20), implants installed using the conventional technique with flap opening and conventional guide; Group DT (n = 20), implants installed using guided surgery with the dual tomography technique; and Group MT (n = 20), implants installed using the model-based tomography technique. After implant installation, the mannequin was subjected to a computed tomography (CT) to measure the linear and angular deviations of implant positioning relative to the initial planning on both sides.

Results There was a higher mean angular deviation in group C (4.61 ± 1.21, p ≤ 0.001) than in groups DT (2.13 ± 0.62) and MT (1.87 ± 0.94), which were statistically similar between each other. Similarly, the linear deviations showed group C with the greatest discrepancy in relation to the other groups in the crown (2.17 ± 0.82, p = 0.007), central (2.2 ± 0.77, p = 0.004), and apical (2.34 ± 0.8, p = 0.001) regions.

Conclusion The techniques of DT and MT presented smaller angular and linear deviations than the conventional technique with the nonprototyped guide. There was no difference between the two-guided surgery techniques.



Publication History

Article published online:
05 September 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 
  • References

  • 1 Norton MR, Gamble C. Bone classification: an objective scale of bone density using the computerized tomography scan. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12 (01) 79-84
  • 2 Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28 (02) 105-111
  • 3 Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L. et al. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol 1988; 59 (05) 287-296
  • 4 Jäger A, Radlanski RJ, Taufall D, Klein C, Steinhöfel N, Döler W. Quantitative determination of alveolar bone density using digital image analysis of microradiographs. Anat Anz 1990; 170 (3-4): 171-179
  • 5 Chan HL, Misch K, Wang HL. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dent 2010; 19 (04) 288-298
  • 6 Kois JC, Kan JY. Predictable peri-implant gingival aesthetics: surgical and prosthodontic rationales. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001; 13 (09) 691-698 , quiz 700, 721–722
  • 7 Neidlinger J, Lilien BA, Kalant Sr DC. Surgical implant stent: a design modification and simplified fabrication technique. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69 (01) 70-72
  • 8 Adrian ED, Ivanhoe JR, Krantz WA. Trajectory surgical guide stent for implant placement. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67 (05) 687-691
  • 9 Al-Harbi SA, Sun AY. Implant placement accuracy when using stereolithographic template as a surgical guide: preliminary results. Implant Dent 2009; 18 (01) 46-56
  • 10 Kurtulmus H, Cotert HS, Guneri P. Computed tomography-based planning and three-dimensional modeling for craniofacial implant placement: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (05) 943-946
  • 11 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
  • 12 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
  • 13 Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (Suppl): 25-42
  • 14 Viegas VN, Dutra V, Pagnoncelli RM, de Oliveira MG. Transference of virtual planning and planning over biomedical prototypes for dental implant placement using guided surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21 (03) 290-295
  • 15 Al-Ekrish AA. Radiology of implant dentistry. Radiol Clin North Am 2018; 56 (01) 141-156
  • 16 Santler G, Kärcher H, Ruda C. Indications and limitations of three-dimensional models in cranio-maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1998; 26 (01) 11-16
  • 17 Scott AE, Vasilescu DM, Seal KA. et al. Three dimensional imaging of paraffin embedded human lung tissue samples by micro-computed tomography. PLoS One 2015; 10 (06) e0126230
  • 18 Yong LT, Moy PK. Complications of computer-aided-design/computer-aided-machining-guided (NobelGuide) surgical implant placement: an evaluation of early clinical results. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10 (03) 123-127
  • 19 Gillot L, Noharet R, Cannas B. Guided surgery and presurgical prosthesis: preliminary results of 33 fully edentulous maxillae treated in accordance with the NobelGuide protocol. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12 (Suppl 1): e104-e113
  • 20 Vercruyssen M, Jacobs R, Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D. The use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means of implants and its transfer to the surgical field: a critical review on accuracy. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35 (06) 454-474
  • 21 Widmann G, Widmann R, Widmann E, Jaschke W, Bale R. Use of a surgical navigation system for CT-guided template production. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22 (01) 72-78
  • 22 Lal K, White GS, Morea DN, Wright RF. Use of stereolithographic templates for surgical and prosthodontic implant planning and placement. Part II. A clinical report. J Prosthodont 2006; 15 (02) 117-122
  • 23 Marchack CB, Moy PK. The use of a custom template for immediate loading with the definitive prosthesis: a clinical report. J Calif Dent Assoc 2003; 31 (12) 925-929
  • 24 van Steenberghe D, Glauser R, Blombäck U. et al. A computed tomographic scan-derived customized surgical template and fixed prosthesis for flapless surgery and immediate loading of implants in fully edentulous maxillae: a prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7 (Suppl 1): S111-S120
  • 25 van Steenberghe D, Naert I, Andersson M, Brajnovic I, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Suetens P. A custom template and definitive prosthesis allowing immediate implant loading in the maxilla: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17 (05) 663-670
  • 26 de Almeida EO, Pellizzer EP, Goiatto MC. et al. Computer-guided surgery in implantology: review of basic concepts. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21 (06) 1917-1921
  • 27 Van de Velde T, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. The clinical and radiographic outcome of implants placed in the posterior maxilla with a guided flapless approach and immediately restored with a provisional rehabilitation: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21 (11) 1223-1233
  • 28 Vercruyssen M, van de Wiele G, Teughels W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Implant- and patient-centred outcomes of guided surgery, a 1-year follow-up: an RCT comparing guided surgery with conventional implant placement. J Clin Periodontol 2014; 41 (12) 1154-1160
  • 29 Hultin M, Svensson KG, Trulsson M. Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 124-135
  • 30 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
  • 31 Somogyi-Ganss E, Holmes HI, Jokstad A. Accuracy of a novel prototype dynamic computer-assisted surgery system. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (08) 882-890
  • 32 Chen Z, Li J, Sinjab K, Mendonca G, Yu H, Wang HL. Accuracy of flapless immediate implant placement in anterior maxilla using computer-assisted versus freehand surgery: A cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (12) 1186-1194
  • 33 Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (04) 416-423
  • 34 Dreiseidler T, Neugebauer J, Ritter L. et al. Accuracy of a newly developed integrated system for dental implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20 (11) 1191-1199
  • 35 Casap N, Tarazi E, Wexler A, Sonnenfeld U, Lustmann J. Intraoperative computerized navigation for flapless implant surgery and immediate loading in the edentulous mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20 (01) 92-98
  • 36 Marchack CB. CAD/CAM-guided implant surgery and fabrication of an immediately loaded prosthesis for a partially edentulous patient. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97 (06) 389-394
  • 37 Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (01) 101-115
  • 38 Vermeulen J. The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (03) 617-624
  • 39 Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE. A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20 (Suppl. 04) 73-86
  • 40 Yatzkair G, Cheng A, Brodie S, Raviv E, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Accuracy of computer-guided implantation in a human cadaver model. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (10) 1143-1149
  • 41 Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Jacobs R. Accuracy assessment of computer-assisted flapless implant placement in partial edentulism. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37 (04) 398-403
  • 42 Sigcho López DA, Pintaudi Amorim K, Laganá DC. Auxiliary reflectance sensor for guided surgery with dental implants: in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (01) 115-122
  • 43 Aly P, Mohsen C. Comparison of the accuracy of three-dimensional printed casts, digital, and conventional casts: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (02) 189-193
  • 44 dos Santos PL, Queiroz TP, Margonar R. et al. Evaluation of bone heating, drill deformation, and drill roughness after implant osteotomy: guided surgery and classic drilling procedure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (01) 51-58