The Impact of Surgical Guide Fixation and Implant Location on Accuracy of Static Computer- Assisted Implant Surgery
dc.contributor.author | Pessoa, Roberto | |
dc.contributor.author | Siqueira, Rafael | |
dc.contributor.author | Li, Junying | |
dc.contributor.author | Saleh, Islam | |
dc.contributor.author | Meneghetti, Priscila | |
dc.contributor.author | Bezerra, Fábio | |
dc.contributor.author | Wang, Hom-Lay | |
dc.contributor.author | Mendonça, Gustavo | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-07T03:13:02Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-03-06 22:13:00 | en |
dc.date.available | 2022-03-07T03:13:02Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022-02 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Pessoa, Roberto; Siqueira, Rafael; Li, Junying; Saleh, Islam; Meneghetti, Priscila; Bezerra, Fábio ; Wang, Hom-Lay ; Mendonça, Gustavo (2022). "The Impact of Surgical Guide Fixation and Implant Location on Accuracy of Static Computer- Assisted Implant Surgery." Journal of Prosthodontics 31(2): 155-164. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1059-941X | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1532-849X | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/171870 | |
dc.description.abstract | PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of static computer- assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) for tooth- supported free- end dental implantation with the aid/and without the aid of fixation pins to secure the surgical template through comparison between planned, 3D printed guide position and placement implant position.Materials and MethodsThirty- two duplicated maxillary resin models were used in the present in vitro study. Digital planning was performed and fabrication of a surgical template that allowed implant placement on the distal extension edentulous site of the model (maxillary left side). A first optical scan was performed after fitting the surgical template on the model to assess the deviation at the surgical guide level. After placing implants in the model using the surgical guide, scan bodies were attached to the implants, and a second scan was performed to record the position of placed implants. The digital representations were later superimposed to the pre- operative scan and measurements of implant deviations were performed. Global (coronal and apical), horizontal (coronal and apical), depth and angular deviations were recorded between planned implant position, guide position, and placement implant position. Three- way ANOVA was used to compare implant location (#13, 14, and 15), fixation pin (with or without pin), and guide comparison (planned, guided, and placement).ResultsFinal implant placement based on the digital plan and based on the 3D printed guide were very similar except for depth deviation. Use of fixation pin had a statistically significant effect on the depth and angular deviation. Overall, without fixation pins and based on guide versus placement, mean global coronal (0.88 ± 0.36 mm), horizontal coronal (0.55 ± 0.32 mm), and apical (1.44 ± 0.75 mm), and angular deviations (4.28 ± 2.01°) were similar to deviations with fixation pins: mean global coronal (0.88 ± 0.36 mm); horizontal coronal (0.67 ± 0.22 mm) and apical (1.60 ± 0.69 mm); and angular deviations (4.53 ± 2.04°). Horizontal apical without pins (1.63 ± 0.69 mm) and with fixation pins (1.72 ± 0.70 mm) was statistically significant (p = 0.044). Depth deviation without pins (- 0.5 ± 0.5 mm) and with fixation pins (- 0.16 ± 0.62 mm) was also statistically significant (p = 0.005). Further analysis demonstrated that the final sleeve position on the 3D printed guide was on average 0.5 mm more coronal than the digital plan.ConclusionsThe use of surgical guides with or without fixation pins can provide clinically acceptable outcomes in terms of accuracy in implant position. There was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of implant position when utilizing fixation pins only for horizontal apical and depth deviation. Additionally, a statistically significant difference between the planned and the 3D printed surgical guide when considering the sleeve position was detected. | |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | |
dc.subject.other | Computer- aided implant surgery (CAIS) | |
dc.subject.other | digital planning | |
dc.subject.other | digital workflow | |
dc.subject.other | guided surgery | |
dc.subject.other | surgical guide | |
dc.subject.other | dental implants | |
dc.title | The Impact of Surgical Guide Fixation and Implant Location on Accuracy of Static Computer- Assisted Implant Surgery | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Dentistry | |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171870/1/jopr13371_am.pdf | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171870/2/jopr13371.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/jopr.13371 | |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Prosthodontics | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Knierim K, et al: Accuracy assessment of cone beam computed tomography- derived laboratory- based surgical templates on partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 137 - 143 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bover- Ramos F, Vina- Almunia J, Cervera- Ballester J, et al: 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: 101 - 115 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Li J, Chen Z, Chan HL, et al: Does flap opening or not influence the accuracy of semi- guided implant placement in partially edentulous sites? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 1253 - 1261 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Raico Gallardo YN, da Silva- Olivio IRT, Mukai E, et al: Accuracy comparison of guided surgery for dental implants according to the tissue of support: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 602 - 612 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chen Z, Li J, Sinjab K, et al: Accuracy of flapless immediate implant placement in anterior maxilla using computer- assisted versus freehand surgery: a cadaver study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 1186 - 1194 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Pozzi A, Polizzi G, Moy PK: Guided surgery with tooth- supported templates for single missing teeth: a critical review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016; 9 (Suppl 1 ): S135 - 153 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Zhou W, Liu Z, Song L, et al: Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of guided implant surgery- a systematic review and meta- analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2018; 18: 28 - 40 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, et al: Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 25 - 42 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Deeb GR, Allen RK, Hall VP, et al: How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3- dimentional printers? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 75: 2559 e2551 - 2559 e2558 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner SFM, et al: Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer- Assisted Implant Surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30: 1067 - 1075 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ersoy AE, Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, et al: Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. Journal of periodontology 2008; 79: 1339 - 1345 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Naziri E, Schramm A, Wilde F: Accuracy of computer- assisted implant placement with insertion templates. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 2016; 5: Doc15 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sigcho Lopez DA, Garcia I, Da Silva Salomao G, et al: Potential deviation factors affecting stereolithographic surgical guides: a systematic review. Implant dentistry 2019; 28: 68 - 73 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Giansanti M, et al: How does an error in positioning the template affect the accuracy of implants inserted using a single fixed mucosa- supported stereolithographic surgical guide? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43: 85 - 92 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Verhamme LM, Meijer GJ, Boumans T, et al: A clinically relevant accuracy study of computer- planned implant placement in the edentulous maxilla using mucosa- supported surgical templates. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17: 343 - 352 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Skjerven H, Olsen- Bergem H, Ronold HJ, et al: Comparison of postoperative intraoral scan versus cone beam computerised tomography to measure accuracy of guided implant placement- a prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30: 531 - 541 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tallarico M, Xhanari E, Kim YJ, et al: Accuracy of computer- assisted template- based implant placement using conventional impression and scan model or intraoral digital impression: a randomised controlled trial with 1 year of follow- up. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 2019; 12: 197 - 206 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Derksen W, Wismeijer D, Flugge T, et al: 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 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Younes F, Cosyn J, De Bruyckere T, et al: 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: 721 - 732 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Siqueira R, Chen Z, Galli M, et al: Does a fully digital workflow improve the accuracy of computer- assisted implant surgery in partially edentulous patients? A systematic review of clinical trials. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2020 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Skjerven H, Riis UH, Herlofsson BB, et al: In vivo accuracy of implant placement using a full digital planning modality and stereolithographic guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34: 124 - 132 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Henprasert P, Dawson DV, El- Kerdani T, et al: Comparison of the accuracy of implant position using surgical guides fabricated by additive and subtractive techniques. J Prosthodont 2020; 29: 534 - 541. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I: Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 108: 181 - 188 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | D’Haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, et al: Current state of the art of computer- guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73: 121 - 133 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Soares MM, Harari ND, Cardoso ES, et al: An in vitro model to evaluate the accuracy of guided surgery systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 824 - 831 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 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 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Di Giacomo GA, Cury PR, de Araujo NS, et al: Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. Journal of periodontology 2005; 76: 503 - 507 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, et al: The accuracy of static computer- aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29 Suppl 16: 416 - 435 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Marei HF, Abdel- Hady A, Al- Khalifa K, et al: Influence of surgeon experience on the accuracy of implant placement via a partially computer- guided surgical protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34: 1177 - 1183 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ravida A, Barootchi S, Tattan M, et al: Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of computer- guided versus conventional implant- retained hybrid prostheses: a long- term retrospective analysis of treatment protocols. J Periodontol 2018; 89: 1015 - 1024 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Papaspyridakos P, Barizan Bordin T, Kim YJ, et al: Implant survival rates and biologic complications with implant- supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with up to 12- year follow- up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 881 - 893 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Smitkarn P, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, et al: The accuracy of single- tooth implants placed using fully digital- guided surgery and freehand implant surgery. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46: 949 - 957 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Farley NE, Kennedy K, McGlumphy EA, et al: Split- mouth comparison of the accuracy of computer- generated and conventional surgical guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: 563 - 572 | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tattan M, Chambrone L, Gonzalez- Martin O, et al: Static computer- aided, partially guided, and free- handed implant placement: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31: 889 - 916 | |
dc.working.doi | NO | en |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.