Accuracy of a novel modified single computed tomography scanning method for assisting dental implant placement: a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare dental implant placement accuracy of three surgical guide fabrication methods: single (SCT) and double computed tomography (DCT), and a newly developed modified SCT (MSCT) scan method. METHODS: A total of 183 cases (183 surgical guides, and 485 implants) of static-guide-assisted implant placement surgery using the SCT, DCT, or MSCT methods in a dental clinic were included in the study. Three-dimensional (3D) deviations (mm) at the entry and tip of the implant body between preoperative simulation and actual placement were measured as surrogate endpoints of implant placement accuracy. The following survey details were collected from medical records and CT data: sex, age at implant placement surgery, surgical guide fabrication method, number of remaining teeth, implant length, implant location, alveolar bone quality, and bone surface inclination at implant placement site in preoperative simulation, etc. Risk factors for reducing implant placement accuracy were investigated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The SCT and DCT methods (odds ratios [ORs] vs. MSCT method: 1.438, 1.178, respectively), posterior location (OR: 1.114), bone surface buccolingual inclination (OR: 0.997), and age at implant placement surgery (OR: 0.995) were significant risk factors for larger 3D deviation at the entry; the SCT (OR: 1.361) and DCT methods (OR: 1.418), posterior location (OR: 1.190), implant length (OR: 1.051), and age at implant placement surgery (OR: 0.995) were significant risk factors for larger 3D deviation at the tip of the implant body. CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement accuracy was better using the MSCT method compared to the SCT and DCT methods.

Newly developed data-matching methodology for oral implant surgery allowing the automatic deletion of metal artifacts in 3D-CT images using new reference markers: A case report.

PATIENTS: The patient was a 55-year-old woman with left upper molar free-end edentulism and 9 full cast metal crowns in her mouth. Three three-dimensional (3D) images were superimposed: a computed tomography (CT) image with the patient wearing the CT-matching template (CTMT) with six glass ceramic markers, which hardly generate any artifacts, on the template surface, and oral plaster model surfaces with and without CTMTs. Metal artifacts were automatically removed by a Boolean operation identifying unrealistic images outside the oral plaster model surface. After the preoperative simulation, fully guided oral implant surgery was performed. Two implant bodies were placed in the left upper edentulism. The placement errors calculated by comparing the preoperative simulation and actual implant placement were then assessed by a software program using the 3D-CT bone morphology as a reference. The 3D deviations between the preoperative simulation and actual placement at the entry of the implant body were a maximum 0.48 mm and minimum 0.26 mm. Those at the tip of the implant body were a maximum 0.56 mm and a minimum 0.25 mm. DISCUSSION: In this case, the maximum 3D deviations at the entry and tip section were less than in previous studies using double CT. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate image fusion utilizing CTMT with new reference markers was possible for a patient with many metal restorations. Using a surgical guide manufactured by the new matching methodology (modified single CT scan method), implant placement deviation can be minimized in patients with many metal restorations.

Occlusal reconstruction of a patient with ameloblastoma ablation using alveolar distraction osteogenesis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Ameloblastoma is one of the most common benign odontogenic neoplasms. Its surgical excision has the potential to lead to postoperative malocclusion. In this case report, we describe the successful interdisciplinary orthodontic treatment of a patient with ameloblastoma who underwent marginal mandibulectomy. CASE PRESENTATION: A woman of 20-year-old was diagnosed with ameloblastoma, and underwent marginal mandibulectomy when she was 8 years of age. She had an excessive overjet (11.5 mm) and a mild open bite (- 1.5 mm) with a severely resorbed atrophic edentulous ridge in the area around the mandibular left lateral incisor, canine and first premolar. An alveolar bone defect associated with tumor resection was regenerated by vertical distraction osteogenesis (DO). Subsequently, 3 dental implants were placed into the reconstructed mandible. Orthodontic treatment using implant-anchored mechanics provided a proper facial profile with significantly improved occlusal function. The occlusion appeared stable for a 7-year retention period. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that surgically assisted and implant anchored-orthodontic approaches might be effective for the correction of such malocclusions.

A longitudinal retrospective study of the analysis of the risk factors of implant failure by the application of generalized estimating equations.

PURPOSE: Many studies have identified risk factors for dental implant failure, although few have investigated the correlation among implant fixtures within single patients. A better analytical method may include repeated measures analysis including generalized estimating equations (GEE). This retrospective cohort study aimed to (1) identify the risk factors for failure of dental implantation and (2) evaluate an analytical method using GEE analysis. METHODS: We analyzed data on early and late implant failures in 296 patients providing 721 rough surface dental implants (2.44 implants per patient). Potential predictors of implant failure included age, gender, smoking, location of implant, use of bone augmentation, number of remaining teeth, opposing tooth condition, fixture length, fixture diameter and type of suprastructure (fixed or removable partial denture). The likelihood of early and late implant failure was estimated by GEE. RESULTS: The early failure rate was 1.5% (11/721 implants, 7/296 patients) and the 10-year cumulative survival rate was 94.0% (7/710 implants, 5/293 patients). The GEE analysis revealed that a significant risk factor for early implant failure was smoking (p<0.01), whereas significant risk factors for late failure were maxillary implant (p=0.02), posterior implant (p<0.01), number of remaining teeth (≥20) (p<0.01), opposing unit being a removable partial denture or nothing (p=0.04) and having a removable type suprastructure (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: GEE analysis showed that smoking was a risk factor for early implant failure, and several risk factors were identified for late implant failure.