Accuracy of virtually planned and conventionally placed implants in edentulous cadaver maxillae and mandibles: A preliminary report

Gillot, Luc; Cannas, Bernard; Friberg, Bertil; Vrielinck, Luc; Rohner, Dennis; Pettersson, Andreas

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.008

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although no previous study assessed 3D deviations regarding computer‐guided immediate implant surgery in the anterior maxilla, studies in partially edentulous zones using tooth‐supported stereolithographic guides showed similar results when compared with the present study (Ersoy, Turkyilmaz, Ozan, & McGlumphy, ; Noharet et al, ; Ozan, Turkyilmaz, Ersoy, McGlumphy, & Rosenstiel, ; Van Assche, Steenberghe, Quirynen, & Jacobs, ; Vermeulen, ). Regarding the freehand group, it is difficult to compare our results to previously published data due to different methodologies used in these studies (Table ) (Gillot et al, ; Van de Velde et al, ; Vercruyssen et al, ). However, all these studies showed the actual position of installed implants with the freehand approach differ significantly from their planned position, even though neighboring teeth and 3D radiographic information could be used as a reference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…In recent years, different meta-analyses (Bover-Ramos, Viña-Almunia, Cervera-Ballester, Peñarrocha-Diago, & García-Mira, 2018;Jung et al, 2009;Schneider, Marquardt, Zwahlen, & Jung, 2009;Van Assche et al, 2012) have reported its deviations: global deviation at both entry (mean: 0.88-1.44 mm) and apex (mean: 1.11-1.91 mm); angular deviation (mean: 2.39-4.30°); and depth deviation (mean: 0.47-0.83 mm). Similarly, the accuracy of mental navigation has also been reported in fully (Gillot et al, 2014;Vercruyssen et al, 2015) or partially edentulous sites (Noharet et al, 2014;Van de Velde, Glor, & Bruyn, 2008;Vermeulen, 2017). However, there is scarce literature comparing guided surgery and freehand approach (Noharet et al, 2014;Vermeulen, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of flapless immediate implant placement in anterior maxilla using computer‐assisted versus freehand surgery: A cadaver study

Chen

Sinjab

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the accuracy of computer‐guided surgery and freehand surgery on flapless immediate implant placement (IIP) in the anterior maxilla. Material and Methods In this split‐mouth design, 24 maxillary incisors in eight human cadaver heads were randomly divided into two groups: computer‐guided surgery (n = 12) and freehand surgery (n = 12). Preoperatively, cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were acquired, and all implants were planned with a software (Blue Sky Plan3). Then, two types of surgeries were performed. To assess any differences in position, the postoperative CBCT was subsequently matched with the preoperative planning. For all the implants, the angular, global, depth, bucco‐lingual, and mesio‐distal deviations between the virtual and actual implant positions were measured. Results A significant lower mean angular deviation (3.11 ± 1.55°, range: 0.66–4.95, p = 0.002) and the global deviation at both coronal (0.85 ± 0.38 mm, range: 0.42–1.51, p = 0.004) and apical levels (0.93 ± 0.34 mm, range: 0.64–1.72, p < 0.001) were observed in the guided group when compared to the freehand group (6.78 ± 3.31°, range: 3.08–14.98; 1.43 ± 0.49 mm, range: 0.65–2.31, and 2.2 ± 0.79 mm, range: 1.01–4.02). However, the accuracy of these two approaches was similar for the depth (p = 0.366). In the buccal direction, the mean deviations of both groups showed a general tendency of implants to be positioned facially, occurring more in implants of the freehand group. Conclusion In flapless IIP, computer‐guided surgery showed superior accuracy than freehand surgery in transferring the implant position from the planning. However, even with the help of a guide, the final fixture position tends to shift toward a facial direction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Accuracy of flapless immediate implant placement in anterior maxilla using computer‐assisted versus freehand surgery: A cadaver study

Chen

Sinjab

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Computer‐guided implant surgery is based on high‐resolution 3D CT scans. Commercially available software for planning implant position such as SimPlant (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium), Nobel Guide (NobelBiocare, Goteborg, Sweden), or Med 3D (Med3D, Heidelberg, Germany) allow clinicians to interact with CT scan data. The combination of CT‐based treatment planning and computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of surgical templates allows clinicians to plan treatment in advance .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have assessed the accuracy of guided surgery for the transfer of virtual plans to clinical situations, while several others have assessed the accuracy of surgical templates in in vitro studies . These studies analyzed the final error of computer‐guided implant surgery, and they mainly focused on the deviation between actual and planned implant positions postsurgery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have assessed the accuracy of guided surgery for the transfer of virtual plans to clinical situations, [16][17][18][19][20][21] while several others have assessed the accuracy of surgical templates in in vitro studies. 12,14,22 These studies analyzed the final error of computer-guided implant surgery, and they mainly focused on the deviation between actual and planned implant positions postsurgery. The final error was due to the combination of surgical template and operation errors; however, it was difficult for clinicians judging which was the main factor contributing to the final error, which prevented improving accuracy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation