Accuracy of fully guided dental implant placement: A prospective clinical in-vivo investigation using intraoral scan data.

AIM: To compare the planned implant position (PIP) with the transferred implant position (TIP) after fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental implant placements were planned using two different implant systems (Camlog Screw-Line [C-SL] and Straumann Bone Level Tapered [S-BLT]), and two different planning software programs (SMOP and coDiagnostiX). All implants were placed according to fully guided protocols, and intraoral scans were performed intraoperatively. For the comparison of PIP and TIP, scan data were imported to Geomagic Control X (GCX) software and accuracies were evaluated. Deviations were reported in a coordinate system (x- [mesiodistal], y- [vestibulo-oral], and z- [vertical] axis) at entry points and apices. Total deviations, including angular deviations, were calculated with GCX. For statistical analysis, the level of significance was set to P < 0.05. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients received 26 implants. Mean 3D deviation at the implant's entry point was 0.61 mm ± 0.28 for C-SL and 0.63 mm ± 0.24 for S-BLT. For the implant's apex, mean 3D deviation of 0.96 mm ± 0.41 was documented for C-SL and 1.04 mm ± 0.34 for S-BLT. Mean angular deviation was 2.58 degrees ± 1.40 for C-SL and 2.89 degrees ± 1.12 for S-BLT. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between implant systems, but showed significant deviations regarding the z-axis, both at entry point and apex (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps provide accurate results. Due to significant vertical deviations, reevaluation of both drilling and insertion depths prior to implant installation should be considered. Maintenance of 1.5- to 2-mm safety distances to critical structures was confirmed.

Performance of ENMC and EULAR/ACR classification systems applied to a single tertiary center cohort of dermatomyositis patients.

BACKGROUND: There have been numerous classification systems to diagnose corresponding myositis subtypes and select appropriate therapeutic measures. However, the lack of a broad consensus on diagnostic criteria has led to clinical uncertainties. The objective of this study was to compare two commonly used dermatomyositis-classification systems regarding their clinical practicability and to point out their specific advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: This study included 30 patients diagnosed with dermatomyositis at the Charité university hospital, Berlin, Germany from 2010 to 2017. Patient files with complete data and defined historical classifications were enrolled and ENMC (2003) and EULAR/ACR (2017) criteria retrospectively applied. RESULTS: According to the ENMC approach, 14 patients were classified as "definite" and 12 as "probable" dermatomyositis. One patient exhibited an "amyopathic dermatomyositis" and three a "DM without dermatitis". Regarding the criteria probability of the EULAR/ACR set, 16 patients had a "high", 13 a "medium" and one a "low probability". There was a significant difference (p = 0.004) between the subclasses of the ENMC in relation to the EULAR/ACR score. The agreement between the classification probabilities of "definite/high" (κ = 0.400) and "possible/medium" (κ = 0.324) was fair. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to find a consensus among the medical disciplines involved and to establish a structured procedure. Future studies with newer approaches are warranted to conclusively decide which system to use for the physician.