No abstract

Background: One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry. Material and methods: Ten clinicians new to implant dentistry inserted one anterior (central incisor) and one posterior (first molar) implants per protocol in training maxillary models. The FG protocol involved drilling and implant placement through the guide, while the PG protocol controlled the pilot drilling only. The FH implant placement was completed without the aid of any guide. A total of 30 models were used, and 60 implants were inserted. The implant vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations from planned positions were calculated. Results: The FG protocol provided the most accurate implant placement in relation to horizontal neck (0.47 mm-0.52 mm), horizontal apex (0.71 mm-0.74 mm), and angle deviations (2.42 o -2.61 o ). The vertical deviation was not significantly different among the different protocols. The PG protocol was generally similar to the FH protocol with a horizontal neck deviation of 1.01 mm-1.14 mm, horizontal apex deviation of 1.02 mm-1.35 mm, and angle deviation of 4.65 o -7.79 o . The FG protocol showed similarity in the accuracy of the anterior and posterior implants. There was a tendency for inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants for the PG and FH protocols. Conclusions: In the hands of recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry, it appears that the accuracy of the FG protocol was superior to the other protocols and was not influenced by the position of the implants. The PG and FH protocols showed inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants.

Background To ensure accurate implant placement, surgical guides are used to control the steps of implant placement surgery. Purpose Evaluation of the accuracy of implant placement in long span edentulous area by novice implant clinicians according to fully‐guided (FG), pilot‐guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placement protocols. Materials and methods Maxillary surgical models with four missing teeth from the right first canine to the first molar were produced by 3‐dimensional printing. Fourteen clinicians new to implant dentistry participated in the study, and each one of them inserted one canine and one molar implant for every implant placement protocol. All implant placement steps were completed in phantom heads to simulate the clinical situation. To evaluate the accuracy, the implant vertical, horizontal platform, horizontal apex, angle, and interimplant distance deviations from the planned positions were calculated. Results With the exception of vertical deviation, the FG placement was clearly more accurate than the PG and FH placements for all the variables for canine and molar implants. The PG placement was significantly more accurate than the FH placement for the horizontal platform and apex deviations, and interimplant distance deviation. The FG placement did not show a significant impact of the location of the implant, or the horizontal deviations of the platform or the apex. The PG and FH placements showed increased deviation at the canine implant than the molar implant, and at the apex of the implants than the platform of the implants. Conclusions Within the limitations of this in vitro study, novice clinicians achieved a significantly more accurate implant position with FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements respectively. Therefore, a form of guided surgery is beneficial for novice clinicians.

Introduction This study measured the duration, deviation and operator's perception of implant placement by fully guided (FG), pilot‐guided (PG) and freehand (FH) protocols by postgraduate students with minimal implant experience. Materials and Methods Twenty postgraduate students participated in the study. Half of them placed single anterior (S‐Ant) and single posterior (S‐Post) implants, and the other half placed anterior (B‐Ant) and posterior (B‐Post) implants in a wide edentulous area. The PG placement involved surgical guides that only controlled pilot drilling, whilst the FG placement controlled all the drilling steps and implant placement. The duration of implant placement and the operator's perception (ease of drilling, ease of implant placement and operator's preference) were measured. The deviations of placed implants were quantified by measuring the trueness and angulation deviations in relation to the planned implants. Results The PG placement was the quickest for inserting implants, followed by FG and FH placements, respectively (p < .05). The location of the implant had influenced the duration of implant placement only for the PG placement. In relation to ease of drilling, ease of implant placement and operator's preference, there was no significant difference amongst the different placement protocols or implant locations. The FG placement was associated with least deviations, followed by PG and FH placements, respectively (p < .05). Conclusions In the hands of postgraduate students with minimal implant experience, FG and PG placements reduced the implant placement duration in comparison with FH placement. The FG placement was consistently more accurate followed by PG placement.