Dataset Information

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Ten clinicians new to implant dentistry inserted one anterior (central incisor) and one posterior (first molar) implants per protocol in training maxillary models. The FG protocol involved drilling and implant placement through the guide, while the PG protocol controlled the pilot drilling only. The FH implant placement was completed without the aid of any guide. A total of 30 models were used, and 60 implants were inserted. The implant vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations from planned positions were calculated. RESULTS:The FG protocol provided the most accurate implant placement in relation to horizontal neck (0.47 mm-0.52 mm), horizontal apex (0.71 mm-0.74 mm), and angle deviations (2.42o-2.61o). The vertical deviation was not significantly different among the different protocols. The PG protocol was generally similar to the FH protocol with a horizontal neck deviation of 1.01 mm-1.14 mm, horizontal apex deviation of 1.02 mm-1.35 mm, and angle deviation of 4.65o-7.79o. The FG protocol showed similarity in the accuracy of the anterior and posterior implants. There was a tendency for inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants for the PG and FH protocols. CONCLUSIONS:In the hands of recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry, it appears that the accuracy of the FG protocol was superior to the other protocols and was not influenced by the position of the implants. The PG and FH protocols showed inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants.

SUBMITTER: Abduo J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7064711 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols.

Abduo Jaafar J Lau Douglas D

International journal of implant dentistry 20200311 1

<h4>Background</h4>One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry.<h4>Material and methods</h4>Ten clinicians new to implant ...[more]

PMID: 32157478

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement in model surgeries according to the design of the drills (straight drills or step drills) used to finalize the implant bed during pilot-guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).MethodsModel surgeries were carried out on resin models randomly assigned to three study groups. Virtual planning software (coDiagnostiX 10.6, Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada) was used to plan the implant positions. In Groups 1 and 2, pilot-guided sCAIS was performed. Straight drills were used in Group 1, and step drills were used in Group 2 to finalize the implant beds. In Group 3, fully guided sCAIS was performed using a universal fully guided kit (RealGUIDE Full Surgical Kit 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy). A total of 90 dental implants (Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were placed (six implants per model, five models per study group). The primary outcome variables (angular deviation, coronal global deviation, and apical global deviation) were calculated for all implants based on the comparison of the preoperative surgical plan with the postoperative scans.ResultsGroup 2 (coronal global deviation, 0.78 ± 0.29 mm; apical global deviation, 1.02 ± 0.56 mm) showed significantly lower values of both global deviation variables than Group 1 (coronal global deviation, 0.95 ± 0.20 mm; apical global deviation, 1.42 ± 0.49 mm). However, there was no significant difference in angular deviation between Groups 1 and 2 (7.56 ± 2.92° and 6.44 ± 2.84°). Group 3 produced significantly lower values of all three primary outcome variables (angular deviation, 2.36 ± 0.90°; coronal global deviation, 0.59 ± 0.28 mm; apical global deviation, 0.90 ± 0.29 mm) than Group 1 and significantly lower angular deviation and coronal global deviation values than Group 2.ConclusionsThe design of the drills used to finalize implant osteotomies during pilot-guided sCAIS influences dental implant placement accuracy. Using step drills instead of straight drills for final osteotomies decreases deviation from the surgical plan. The fully guided approach performed better than the pilot-guided sCAIS.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols.

Publications

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets