PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2025; 19(04): 1184-1192
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1802949
Original Article

Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Placement in Narrow Ridge by Novice Clinicians

Authors

  • Jaafar Abduo 

    1   Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  • Radhwan Himmadi Hasan

    2   Prosthodontics Department, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

  • Douglas Lau

    1   Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Funding This study has been funded by the ITI Research Grant (1335_2018).
Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical impact of implant placement by novice implant clinicians in the narrow anterior ridge by fully guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placements.

Materials and Methods

A maxillary surgical model with missing incisors and a narrow ridge was designed. Two implants were planned in the lateral incisor locations to receive screw-retained implant prosthesis. Fifteen novice implant clinicians placed implants according to every placement. Angle, vertical and horizontal platform, and horizontal apex deviations from the planned implant were measured. The clinical impact evaluation aimed to relate the position of each placed implant to (1) periimplant bone dimension after implant placement and (2) the prosthesis retention mechanism.

Results

The FG implants were more accurate than PG implants at the angle (p = 0.001) and maximum horizontal apex deviations (p = 0.001), and were more accurate than FH implants for all comparisons (p = 0.001). The PG implants were superior to FH implants at the maximal horizontal platform deviation (p = 0.001). All FG implants were fully covered with bone and could be restored with screw-retained prostheses. One PG implant (3.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one PG implant (3.3%) could not be restored with screw-retained prosthesis. Seven FH implants (23.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one FH implant (3.3%) suffered from dehiscence. Seven FH implants (23.3%) were not restorable with screw-retained prosthesis.

Conclusion

For novice clinicians, a significantly greater accuracy was observed for FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements. FH implants experienced significant compromise of periimplant bone dimension and the prosthesis retention mechanism.

Keywords

computer-assisted - guided surgery - implant surgery - surgical guide


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. März 2025

© 2025. 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 Younes F, Cosyn J, De Bruyckere T, Cleymaet R, Bouckaert E, Eghbali A. A randomized controlled study on the accuracy of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45 (06) 721-732
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Ramaglia L, Toti P, Sbordone C, Guidetti F, Martuscelli R, Sbordone L. Implant angulation: 2-year retrospective analysis on the influence of dental implant angle insertion on marginal bone resorption in maxillary and mandibular osseous onlay grafts. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (04) 769-779
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Lou F, Rao P, Zhang M, Luo S, Lu S, Xiao J. Accuracy evaluation of partially guided and fully guided templates applied to implant surgery of anterior teeth: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021; 23 (01) 117-130
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (16, Suppl 16): 416-435
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Fang Y, An X, Jeong SM, Choi BH. Accuracy of computer-guided implant placement in anterior regions. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (05) 836-842
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Van Assche N, Quirynen M. Tolerance within a surgical guide. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21 (04) 455-458
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, Lee SW, Ahn SJ. Reliability of a CAD/CAM surgical guide for implant placement: an in vitro comparison of surgeons' experience levels and implant sites. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30 (04) 367-169
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Alevizakos V, Mitov G, Stoetzer M, von See C. A retrospective study of the accuracy of template-guided versus freehand implant placement: a nonradiologic method. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019; 128 (03) 220-226
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Schulz MC, Hofmann F, Range U, Lauer G, Haim D. Pilot-drill guided vs. full-guided implant insertion in artificial mandibles-a prospective laboratory study in fifth-year dental students. Int J Implant Dent 2019; 5 (01) 23
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Marei HF, Abdel-Hady A, Al-Khalifa K, Al-Mahalawy H. Influence of surgeon experience on the accuracy of implant placement via a partially computer-guided surgical protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (05) 1177-1183
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Singthong W, Serichetaphongse P, Chengprapakorn W. A randomized clinical trial on the accuracy of guided implant surgery between two implant-planning programs used by inexperienced operators. J Prosthet Dent 2024; 131 (03) 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Abduo J, Lau D. Duration, deviation and operator's perception of static computer assisted implant placements by inexperienced clinicians. Eur J Dent Educ 2022; 26 (03) 477-487
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Pozzi A, Polizzi G, Moy PK. Guided surgery with tooth-supported templates for single missing teeth: a critical review. Eur J Oral Implantology 2016; 9 (1, Suppl 1): S135-S153
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Joda T, Derksen W, Wittneben JG, Kuehl S. Static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), economics and surgical complications: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 (16, Suppl 16): 359-373
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Schutyser F, Boumans T. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114 (03) 407-413
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Derksen W, Wismeijer D, Flügge T, Hassan B, Tahmaseb A. The accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery with tooth-supported, digitally designed drill guides based on CBCT and intraoral scanning. A prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30 (10) 1005-1015
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Younes F, Eghbali A, De Bruyckere T, Cleymaet R, Cosyn J. A randomized controlled trial on the efficiency of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30 (02) 131-138
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Schneider D, Sancho-Puchades M, Schober F, Thoma D, Hämmerle C, Jung R. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted implant planning and placement in partially edentulous patients. Part 3: time and cost analyses. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2019; 39 (03) e71-e82
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Gao Y, Gao S, Yao Y, Cai X. Hard tissue stability outside the buccal bone arch contour after guided bone regeneration in the anterior maxilla: a retrospective cohort radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023; 34 (12) 1373-1384
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Chiapasco M, Casentini P. Horizontal bone-augmentation procedures in implant dentistry: prosthetically guided regeneration. Periodontol 2000 2018; 77 (01) 213-240
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Schneider D, Sancho-Puchades M, Mir-Marí J, Mühlemann S, Jung R, Hämmerle C. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted implant planning and placement in partially edentulous patients. Part 4: accuracy of implant placement. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2019; 39 (04) e111-e122
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Guentsch A, Sukhtankar L, An H, Luepke PG. Precision and trueness of implant placement with and without static surgical guides: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 126 (03) 398-404
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Park JY, Song YW, Park SH, Kim JH, Park JM, Lee JS. Clinical factors influencing implant positioning by guided surgery using a nonmetal sleeve template in the partially edentulous ridge: multiple regression analysis of a prospective cohort. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31 (12) 1187-1198
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J. et al. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (Suppl): 92-109
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Nagata K, Fuchigami K, Hoshi N, Atsumi M, Kimoto K, Kawana H. Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: a comparative study. Int J Implant Dent 2021; 7 (01) 2
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 De Souza AB, Kang M, Negreiros WM, El-Rafie K, Finkelman M, Papaspyridakos P. A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer-assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022; 33 (01) 45-52
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kessler A, Le V, Folwaczny M. Influence of the tooth position, guided sleeve height, supporting length, manufacturing methods, and resin E-modulus on the in vitro accuracy of surgical implant guides in a free-end situation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021; 32 (09) 1097-1104
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Lin CC, Ishikawa M, Maida T. et al. Stereolithographic surgical guide with a combination of tooth and bone support: accuracy of guided implant surgery in distal extension Situation. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (03) 709
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner SFM, Faerber K, Buser R, Buser D. Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30 (11) 1067-1075
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Ketabi AR, Kastner E, Brenner M, Lauer HC, Schulz MC. Implant insertion using an orientation template and a full-guiding template - a prospective model analysis in a cohort of dentists participating in an implantology curriculum. Ann Anat 2021; 236: 151716
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Schneider D, Sancho-Puchades M, Benic GI, Hämmerle CH, Jung RE. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted implant planning and placement in partially edentulous patients. Part 1: clinician-related outcome measures. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2018; 38 (Suppl): s49-s57
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Zhou M, Zhou H, Li SY, Yang XB, Geng YM, Che YJ. Accuracy of implant placement guided with surgical template: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2021; 41 (02) e55-e62
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Wang ZY, Chao JR, Zheng JW, You M, Liu Y, Shen JF. The influence of crown coverage on the accuracy of static guided implant surgery in partially edentulous models: an in vitro study. J Dent 2021; 115: 103882
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 El Kholy K, Janner SFM, Schimmel M, Buser D. The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (01) 101-107
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Guentsch A, An H, Dentino AR. Precision and trueness of computer-assisted implant placement using static surgical guides with open and closed sleeves: an in vitro analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022; 33 (04) 441-450
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar