Digital measurement methods on accuracy evaluation of six implants placed paralleled with the static surgical guide

doi:10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2022.06.003

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of three digital measurement methods on the accuracy evaluation of implants placed with the static surgical guide, and to explore the influence of surgical procedure on the accuracy and parallelism of multiple implants assisted by the same guide plate. Methods CBCT data of three patients with mandibular edentulous were randomly selected. After data extraction, 10 models of each were printed by Straumann P20+ 3D printer and a total of 30 resin models of mandibular edentulous were made. Surgical guide plates were designed according to the routine implantation of parallel implants at tooth positions 46, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 36 in edentulous fixed restoration. Six implants were planted from left to right by an implant doctor according to the surgical guidelines of digital guide assisted implantation technology, with a total of 180 implants. Three measurements were used to evaluate the 3D deviation and parallelism of the implants. Results The mean Angle deviation of all implants was 1.89°±0.87°, and the mean 3D distance deviation of implants was (0.46±0.19) mm at the implant's neck and (0.58±0.21) mm at the implants root apex. The actual postoperative average angle between any two implants was 1.65°±0.87°, with a minimum of 0.02° and a maximum of 5.54°. Scan-body&Qualify, Scan-body&coDiagnostiX, and CBCT&coDiagnostiX three measurement methods, the three sets of data axial angle deviations are 1.96°（1.26°）, 1.82°（1.15°）and 1.60°（1.12°）, the 3D distance deviations of the neck are 0.37 mm（0.23 mm）, 0.41 mm（0.15 mm）and 0.6 mm（0.28 mm）, respectively. The 3D distance deviations of the root apex are 0.47 mm（0.26 mm）, 0.55 mm（0.22 mm）, and (0.69±0.22) mm, respectively. Conclusions CBCT measurements are more accurate than the scan-body method in angular deviation and less accurate in 3D distance deviation. The accuracy and parallelism of multiple implants assisted by the same guide plate are good. The deviation does not accumulate or decrease during the operation and is related to the implant site.

Key words: Dental implant, Digital implant surgical guide, Measurement method, Accuracy, Parallelism

Ni Ting, Zhang Liang, Han Zekui, Wang Xinyu, Duan Feng. Digital measurement methods on accuracy evaluation of six implants placed paralleled with the static surgical guide[J]. Chinese Journal of Oral Implantology, 2022, 27(3): 140-146.

References

[1] Whitley D 3rd, Eidson RS, Rudek I, et al. In-office fabrication of dental implant surgical guides using desktop stereolithographic printing and implant treatment planning software: a clinical report[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017,118(3):256-263. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.017.
[2] Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Giansanti M, et al.How does an error in positioning the template affect the accuracy of implants inserted using a single fixed mucosa-supported stereolithographic surgical guide?[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014,43(1):85-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.06.012.
[3] Oh KC, Jeon C, Park JM, et al.Digital workflow to provide an immediate interim restoration after single-implant placement by using a surgical guide and a matrix-positioning device[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2019,121(1):17-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.029.
[4] Yimarj P, Subbalekha K, Dhanesuan K, et al.Comparison of the accuracy of implant position for two-implants supported fixed dental prosthesis using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2020,22(6):672-678. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12949.
[5] 李晓燕, 曹军. 西安地区正常牙冠宽度及上、下颌牙量相关性研究[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2008,24(1):82-84. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3733.2008.01.020.
[6] Pyo SW, Lim YJ, Koo KT, et al.Methods used to assess the 3D accuracy of dental implant positions in computer-guided implant placement: a review[J]. J Clin Med, 2019,8(1):54. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8010054.
[7] Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, et al.Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014,29(4):853-862. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3343.
[8] Pyo SW, Lim YJ, Koo KT, et al.Methods used to assess the 3D accuracy of dental implant positions in computer-guided implant placement: a review[J]. J Clin Med, 2019,8(1):54. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8010054.
[9] El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner S, et al.Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019,30(11):1067-1075. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13520.
[10] Abduo J, Lau D.Effect of manufacturing technique on the accuracy of surgical guides for static computer-aided implant surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2020,35(5):931-938. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.8186.
[11] Chang PS, Parker TH, Patrick CW Jr, et al.The accuracy of stereolithography in planning craniofacial bone replacement[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2003,14(2):164-170. DOI: 10.1097/00001665-200303000-00006.
[12] Stumpel LJ.Deformation of stereolithographically produced surgical guides: an observational case series report[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2012,14(3):442-453. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00268.x.
[13] Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Giansanti M, et al.The intrinsic error of a stereolithographic surgical template in implant guided surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013,42(2):264-275. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.06.010.
[14] Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Machtei EE.Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2009,20(10):1156-1162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01748.x.
[15] Lin CC, Ishikawa M, Maida T, et al.Stereolithographic surgical guide with a combination of tooth and bone support: accuracy of guided implant surgery in distal extension situation[J]. J Clin Med, 2020,9(3):709. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030709.
[16] Arisan V, Karabuda CZ, Ozdemir T.Implant surgery using bone - and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides in totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post-operative outcomes of computer-aided vs. standard techniques[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010,21(9):980-988. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01957.x.
[17] Amorfini L, Storelli S, Romeo E.Rehabilitation of a dentate mandible requiring a full arch rehabilitation. immediate loading of a fixed complete denture on 8 implants placed with a bone-supported surgical computer-planned guide: a case report[J]. J Oral Implantol, 2011,37:106-113. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00059.
[18] Sun Y, Luebbers HT, Agbaje JO, et al.Accuracy of a dedicated bone-supported surgical template for dental implant placement with direct visual control[J]. J Healthc Eng, 2015,6(4):779-789. DOI: 10.1260/2040-2295.6.4.779.
[19] Kaewsiri D, Panmekiate S, Subbalekha K, et al.The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019,30(6):505-514. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13435.
[20] Wu D, Zhou L, Yang J, et al.Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guide for dental implant placement[J]. Int J Implant Dent, 2020,6(1):78. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00272-0.