Tooth morphology fusion technique is more accurate than conventional technique in transferring morphology of provisional to definitive screw-retained, implant-supported crown: A preliminary intervention study.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the tooth morphology fusion (TMF) digital technique and customized impression transfer coping (conventional) technique when transferring the morphology of a provisional crown to a definitive screw-retained implant-supported crown. METHODS: Six cases of partial edentulism (one anterior and five posterior) treated with oral implant placement in our clinic for the loss of three or fewer teeth in the maxilla or mandible between April 2017 and September 2018 were included. After implant placement and re-entry surgery, provisional restorations were made and adjusted to obtain the ideal morphology. Two definitive restorations were constructed by transferring the complete morphology of the provisional restorations, including the subgingival contour, using the TMF digital and conventional techniques. Three sets of surface morphological data were obtained using a desktop scanner. The three-dimensional total discrepancy volume (TDV) between the provisional restoration (reference) and the two definitive restorations was digitally measured by overlapping the surface data of the stone cast using the Boolean operation. Each TDV ratio (%) was calculated by dividing the TDV by the volume of provisional restoration. The median TDV ratios for TMF and conventional techniques were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The median TDV ratio between provisional and definitive restorations constructed using the TMF digital technique (8.05%) was significantly lower than that obtained using the conventional technique (13.56%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary intervention study, the TMF digital technique was more accurate than the conventional technique for the transfer of morphology from provisional to definitive prosthesis.

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.