Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of computer-assisted, template-guided implant placement compared with conventional implant placement by hand-An in vitro study.
Schneider, David; Sax, Caroline; Sancho-Puchades, Manuel; Hämmerle, Christoph H F; Jung, Ronald Ernst.
Affiliation
  • Schneider D; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Sax C; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Sancho-Puchades M; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Hämmerle CHF; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Jung RE; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 32(9): 1052-1060, 2021 Sep.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34143522
OBJECTIVES: To compare free-hand to computer-assisted implant planning and placement (CAIPP) regarding planned to achieved implant position. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-eight cast/bone models were mounted in mannequin heads. On each side, a tooth gap of different sizes was created. In the test group (T), study implants were placed using a CAD-CAM guide based on virtual planning. In the control (C), free-hand implant placement was performed. After CBCT scanning, the implant position was compared with the planned position. Descriptive statistics were applied, and ANOVA was used to identify differences between groups and gaps. (p < .05). RESULTS: In C, mean lateral deviations at the implant base amounted to 0.7 mm (max. 1.8) (large gap) and 0.49 mm (1.22) (small gap). In T, 0.18 mm (0.49) and 0.24 mm (0.52) were recorded. At the apex, 0.77 mm (2.04) (large gap) and 0.51 mm (1.24) (small gap) were measured in C, and 0.31 mm (0.83)/0.34 mm (0.93) in T. Mean vertical deviations in C measured 0.46 mm (1.26) (large gap) and 0.45 mm (1.7) (small gap). In T, 0.14 mm (0.44) and 0.28 mm (0.78) were recorded. Mean angular deviations of 1.7° (3.2°) were observed in C (large gap) and 1.36° (2.1°) (small gap). In T, mean values were 1.57° (3.3°) and 1.32° (3.4°). Lateral and vertical deviations were significantly different between groups (not gaps), angular between gaps (not groups). CONCLUSIONS: CAIPP protocols showed smaller deviations irrespective of the size of the tooth gap. In C, the gap size had an influence on the error in angulation only.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Surgery, Computer-Assisted Language: En Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Switzerland Country of publication: Denmark

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Surgery, Computer-Assisted Language: En Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Switzerland Country of publication: Denmark