RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dental implantology has become an established option for treating tooth loss over the recent decades. Before inserting an implant in a clinical situation, theoretical and practical training is recommended. Different methods are available to give assistance in determining the correctly planned implant position. In this study, two different guiding methods were assessed considering their accuracy for implant insertion in a group of dentists. METHODS: After three-dimensional planning of the implant positions, two surgical templates were manufactured as follows: in region 34 a stereolithographic template was used to perform a full-guided implant insertion, in region 44 a CAD/CAM milled template was used to determine the implant position and subsequently, perform a free-hand insertion. In total, 86 implants were placed in mandibular models by 43 dentists participating in a postgraduate curriculum. The differences between planned and achieved implant positions were measured and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The implants inserted fully-guided showed a lower deviation of the three-dimensional angulation (2.266 ± 1.443 degrees vs. 7.954 ± 4.372 degrees) and the cumulated mismatch of the implant position (0.547 ± 0.237 mm vs. 1.160 ± 0.427 mm) compared to the free-handed mode. For the angulation and the mismatch at the implant base the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the study it can be summarized that the full-guided implant insertion leads to a higher transfer accuracy compared to the free-hand method in a cohort of dentist inexperienced in dental implantology. However, the clinical effect has to be discussed as the study was performed using artificial mandibles and ideal conditions.
