Verification of the accuracy of dynamic navigation for conventional and mouthpiece methods: in vivo study.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic navigation for implant placement is becoming popular under the concept of top-down treatment. The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of a dynamic navigation system for implant placement. METHODS: Implant placement was performed on 38 patients using 50 implant fixtures. Patients in group C were treated using a conventional method, in which thermoplastic clips were fixed to the teeth, and patients in group M were treated using thermoplastic clips fixed to a mouthpiece attached to the teeth. The groups were compared to verify whether an accuracy difference existed. A treatment planning support program for dental implants was used to superimpose the postoperative computed tomography data on the preoperative implant design data to measure the entry point, apex point, and angular deviation. RESULTS: The accuracy of group C was 1.36 ± 0.51 mm for entry point, 1.30 ± 0.59 mm for apex point, and 3.20 ± 0.74° for angular deviation. The accuracy of group M was 1.06 ± 0.31 mm for the entry point, 1.02 ± 0.30 mm for the apex point, and 2.91 ± 0.97° for angular deviation. Significant differences were observed in the entry and apex points between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that group M exhibited better accuracy than group C, indicating that the stability of the thermoplastic clip is important for ensuring the accuracy of the dynamic navigation system. No previous studies have verified the accuracy of this system using the mouthpiece method, and additional data is required to confirm its accuracy for dental implant placement. The mouthpiece method improves the accuracy of implant placement and provides a safer implant treatment than the conventional method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), Registration Number: UMIN000051949, URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view_his.cgi on August 21, 2023.

Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Implant treatment using guided surgery is becoming widespread in clinical dental practice. Furthermore, the development of digital technology has enabled the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) to fabricate surgical guide plates. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of guided surgery using the silicone impression method with a three-dimensional (3D) scanner and the digital impression method with IOS for one side of the mandibular free end. In addition, we compared the accuracy of tooth-supported vs tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plates. RESULTS: The accuracy of the tooth-supported surgical guide plate using the new IOS method instead of the method of obtaining impressions with conventional silicone resulted in better measurements of 3D deviation at the crest, 3D deviation at the apex, and angular deviation. In terms of the accuracy of the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate, there were no significant differences in all measurements. The surgical guide plate using an IOS and the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate may enable more accurate guided surgery. CONCLUSION: Tooth/mucosa-supported guided surgery involving preparation with an IOS may result in more accurate implant surgery.

Methods used to assess implant stability: current status.

Successful osseointegration is a prerequisite for functional dental implants. Continuous monitoring in an objective and quantitative manner is important to determine the status of implant stability. Historically, the gold standard method used to evaluate degree of osseointegration was microscopic or histologic analysis. However, due to the invasiveness of this method and related ethical issues, various other methods of analysis have been proposed: radiographs, cutting torque resistance, reverse torque, modal analysis, and resonance frequency analysis. This review focuses on the methods currently available for the evaluation of implant stability. (More than 50 references.)