EVALUATING THE ACCURACY OF TOOTH-SUPPORTED VS MUCOSA-SUPPORTED 3D-PRINTED SURGICAL GUIDE IN DENTAL IMPLANT PLACEMENT (CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY)

Year 2020, Volume: 23 Issue: 3, 154 - 159, 05.10.2020

Emad Toutangy Bassel Brad Mohammad Alaa Alzein Mohammed Yamen Al-shurbaji Al-moziek

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.694621

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.

Keywords

accuracy, dental implants, Stereolithography, surgical 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.