Accuracy Evaluation of a Stereolithographic Surgical Template for Dental Implant Insertion Using 3D Superimposition Protocol

Abstract

The aimof this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a stereolithographic template, with sleeve structure incorporated into the design, for computer-guided dental implant insertion in partially edentulous patients. Materials and Methods Sixty-five implants were placed in twenty-five consecutive patients with a stereolithographic surgical template. After surgery, digital impression was taken and 3D inaccuracy of implants position at entry point, apex, and angle deviation was measured using an inspection tool software. Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare accuracy between maxillary and mandibular surgical guides. A p value < .05 was considered significant. Results Mean (and standard deviation) of 3D error at the entry point was 0.798 mm (±0.52), at the implant apex it was 1.17 mm (±0.63), and mean angular deviation was 2.34 (±0.85). A statistically significant reduced 3D error was observed at entry point p = .037, at implant apex p = .008, and also in angular deviation p = .030 in mandible when comparing to maxilla. Conclusions The surgical template used has proved high accuracy for implant insertion. Within the limitations of the present study, the protocol for comparing a digital file (treatment plan) with postinsertion digital impression may be considered a useful procedure for assessing surgical template accuracy, avoiding radiation exposure, during postoperative CBCT scanning.

The Use of Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography in Management of Patients Requiring Dental Implants: An American Academy of Periodontology Best Evidence Review

“…For this review pre‐implant diagnosis refers to the evaluation of the proposed implant site prior to implant therapy to rule out the presence of occult pathology, foreign bodies, and/or defects and to determine the suitability of the site in terms of 3D morphology and proximity to vital anatomic structures. In terms of treatment outcome assessment related to the use of CBCT after implant site development or implant placement, it should be noted that comparing digital treatment plans to post‐treatment digital impressions is a radiation‐free alternative to CBCT for assessing treatment outcomes 31 …”

“…In terms of treatment outcome assessment related to the use of CBCT after implant site development or implant placement, it should be noted that comparing digital treatment plans to post-treatment digital impressions is a radiation-free alternative to CBCT for assessing treatment outcomes. 31 Pathology/incidental findings. Studies in this category underscore the need to thoroughly examine all CBCT volumes for clinically significant findings within and beyond the region of interest and highlight the high prevalence of incidental findings in CBCT scans.…”

Endodontic applications of 3D printing

“…). There is no gold standard for evaluating 3D printers (Cristache & Gurbanescu ). Extrapolating the results of existing orthodontic and implant accuracy studies for endodontic applications is not advisable because clinical tolerances and objectives differ (Favero et al .…”

“…The orthodontic literature describes the accuracy of 3D printed objects by scanning and comparing model or appliance products with a source scan for dimensional conformity (Lee et al 2015, Bryant 2017, Camardella et al 2017, Favero et al 2017. There is no gold standard for evaluating 3D printers (Cristache & Gurbanescu 2017). Extrapolating the results of existing orthodontic and implant accuracy studies for endodontic applications is not advisable because clinical tolerances and objectives differ (Favero et al 2017); endodontic clinical applications should be evaluated.…”

Influence of implant macrodesign and insertion connection technology on the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant surgery

“…This deviation can be a result of multiple sources: from the imaging process, data transfer, template manufacture, inaccurate positioning of the guide in the mouth, and drill errors . These variables may influence the angulation, length, and diameter of the osteotomy as well as implant insertion that translates to deviations in implant position …”