EVALUATING THE ACCURACY OF TOOTH-SUPPORTED VS MUCOSA-SUPPORTED 3D-PRINTED SURGICAL GUIDE IN DENTAL IMPLANT PLACEMENT (CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY)
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to estimate the accuracy of implant
insertion using stereolithographic 3D-printed surgical guides; two types were
evaluated: tooth-supported and mucosa-supported guides.
Materials and
methods: 9 patients were enrolled in
this study, 5 males and 4 females, mean age: 49.33 years. 12 implants were
inserted using tooth-supported guides While 12 implants were inserted using
mucosa-supported guides, deviations between the virtual planned implants and
the placed implants were calculated after matching the pre- and post-operative
CBCT. Matching process was performed using digital software (Blue Sky Plan);
angular deviation, deviation at the entry point and apex of the implant were
measured. An independent samples t-test was performed to
compare the two groups using SPSS version 25.
Results: The mean angular deviations were 3.67 ± 1.61 degrees and 5.46 ± 2.41 degrees with the tooth-supported and mucosa-supported surgical
guides respectively, and the mean three‐dimensional deviations were 0.70 ± 0.35
mm and 1.38 ±
0.41 mm at the entry point, 0.99
± 0.52
mm and 1.86 ±
0.51 mm at the apex, with
the tooth-supported and mucosa-supported surgical guides respectively.
Conclusions: The results of this study showed that the accuracy of
the tooth-supported guide is superior to the mucosa-supported guide.
Supporting Institution
Department of implantology
Project Number
3387
Thanks
special thanks to Cumhuriyet Dental journal and to all of the co- others
References
- 1. Hämmerle, C.H., R.E. Jung, and A. Feloutzis, A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients. Journal of clinical periodontology, 2002. 29: p. 226-231.
- 2. Naziri, E., A. Schramm, and F. Wilde, Accuracy of computer-assisted implant placement with insertion templates. GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW, 2016. 5.
- 3. Yeo, D.K.L., T. Freer, and P. Brockhurst, Distortions in panoramic radiographs. Australian orthodontic journal, 2002. 18(2): p. 92.
- 4. Reddy, M., et al., A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clinical oral implants research, 1994. 5(4): p. 229-238.
- 5. Skjerven, H., et al., In Vivo Accuracy of Implant Placement Using a Full Digital Planning Modality and Stereolithographic Guides. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2019. 34(1).
- 6. Arısan, V., Z.C. Karabuda, and T. Özdemir, Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer‐aided implant placement: a computed tomography‐based clinical comparative study. Journal of periodontology, 2010. 81(1): p. 43-51.
- 7. Campelo, L.D. and J.R.D. Camara, Flapless implant surgery: a 10-year clinical retrospective analysis. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2002. 17(2).
- 8. Brodala, N., Flapless surgery and its effect on dental implant outcomes. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 2009. 24: p. 118.
- 9. Sclar, A.G., Guidelines for flapless surgery. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2007. 65(7): p. 20-32.
- 10. Becker, W., et al., Minimally invasive flapless implant surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2005. 7: p. s21-s27.
- 11. Fortin, T., et al., Effect of flapless surgery on pain experienced in implant placement using an image-guided system. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2006. 21(2).
- 12. Cassetta, M., et al., The intrinsic error of a stereolithographic surgical template in implant guided surgery. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2013. 42(2): p. 264-275.
- 13. Naitoh, M., et al., Can implants be correctly angulated based on surgical templates used for osseointegrated dental implants? Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2000. 11(5): p. 409-414.
- 14. Al-Harbi, S.A. and A.Y. Sun, Implant placement accuracy when using stereolithographic template as a surgical guide: preliminary results. Implant dentistry, 2009. 18(1): p. 46-56.
- 15. Van Assche, N., et al., Accuracy of implant placement based on pre‐surgical planning of three‐dimensional cone‐beam images: a pilot study. Journal of clinical periodontology, 2007. 34(9): p. 816-821.
- 16. Ersoy, A.E., et al., Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. Journal of periodontology, 2008. 79(8): p. 1339-1345.
- 17. Cassetta, M., et al., Accuracy of two stereolithographic surgical templates: a retrospective study. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2013. 15(3): p. 448-459.
- 18. Tahmaseb, A., et al., Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2014. 29.
- 19. Turbush, S.K. and I. Turkyilmaz, Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2012. 108(3): p. 181-188.
- 20. D'haese, J., et al., A prospective study on the accuracy of mucosally supported stereolithographic surgical guides in fully edentulous maxillae. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2012. 14(2): p. 293-303.
- 21. Vasak, C., et al., Computed tomography‐based evaluation of template (NobelGuide™)‐guided implant positions: a prospective radiological study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2011. 22(10): p. 1157-1163.
- 22. Ochi, M., et al., Factors affecting accuracy of implant placement with mucosa-supported stereolithographic surgical guides in edentulous mandibles. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2013. 43(11): p. 1653-1660.
Abstract
Project Number
3387
References
- 1. Hämmerle, C.H., R.E. Jung, and A. Feloutzis, A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients. Journal of clinical periodontology, 2002. 29: p. 226-231.
- 2. Naziri, E., A. Schramm, and F. Wilde, Accuracy of computer-assisted implant placement with insertion templates. GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW, 2016. 5.
- 3. Yeo, D.K.L., T. Freer, and P. Brockhurst, Distortions in panoramic radiographs. Australian orthodontic journal, 2002. 18(2): p. 92.
- 4. Reddy, M., et al., A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clinical oral implants research, 1994. 5(4): p. 229-238.
- 5. Skjerven, H., et al., In Vivo Accuracy of Implant Placement Using a Full Digital Planning Modality and Stereolithographic Guides. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2019. 34(1).
- 6. Arısan, V., Z.C. Karabuda, and T. Özdemir, Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer‐aided implant placement: a computed tomography‐based clinical comparative study. Journal of periodontology, 2010. 81(1): p. 43-51.
- 7. Campelo, L.D. and J.R.D. Camara, Flapless implant surgery: a 10-year clinical retrospective analysis. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2002. 17(2).
- 8. Brodala, N., Flapless surgery and its effect on dental implant outcomes. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 2009. 24: p. 118.
- 9. Sclar, A.G., Guidelines for flapless surgery. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2007. 65(7): p. 20-32.
- 10. Becker, W., et al., Minimally invasive flapless implant surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2005. 7: p. s21-s27.
- 11. Fortin, T., et al., Effect of flapless surgery on pain experienced in implant placement using an image-guided system. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2006. 21(2).
- 12. Cassetta, M., et al., The intrinsic error of a stereolithographic surgical template in implant guided surgery. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2013. 42(2): p. 264-275.
- 13. Naitoh, M., et al., Can implants be correctly angulated based on surgical templates used for osseointegrated dental implants? Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2000. 11(5): p. 409-414.
- 14. Al-Harbi, S.A. and A.Y. Sun, Implant placement accuracy when using stereolithographic template as a surgical guide: preliminary results. Implant dentistry, 2009. 18(1): p. 46-56.
- 15. Van Assche, N., et al., Accuracy of implant placement based on pre‐surgical planning of three‐dimensional cone‐beam images: a pilot study. Journal of clinical periodontology, 2007. 34(9): p. 816-821.
- 16. Ersoy, A.E., et al., Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. Journal of periodontology, 2008. 79(8): p. 1339-1345.
- 17. Cassetta, M., et al., Accuracy of two stereolithographic surgical templates: a retrospective study. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2013. 15(3): p. 448-459.
- 18. Tahmaseb, A., et al., Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2014. 29.
- 19. Turbush, S.K. and I. Turkyilmaz, Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2012. 108(3): p. 181-188.
- 20. D'haese, J., et al., A prospective study on the accuracy of mucosally supported stereolithographic surgical guides in fully edentulous maxillae. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2012. 14(2): p. 293-303.
- 21. Vasak, C., et al., Computed tomography‐based evaluation of template (NobelGuide™)‐guided implant positions: a prospective radiological study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2011. 22(10): p. 1157-1163.
- 22. Ochi, M., et al., Factors affecting accuracy of implant placement with mucosa-supported stereolithographic surgical guides in edentulous mandibles. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2013. 43(11): p. 1653-1660.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Project Number | 3387 |
| Publication Date | October 5, 2020 |
| Submission Date | February 26, 2020 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2020Volume: 23 Issue: 3 |
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.