Clinical Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Zhou, Wenjuan; Liu, Zhonghao; Song, Lixiao; Kuo, Chia‐Ling; Shafer, David

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.07.007

Cited by 158 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the accuracy between the planned and placed implants inserted by the static surgical stents was extensively studied (Tahmaseb, Wismeijer, Coucke, & Derksen, 2014;Zhou, Liu, Song, Kuo, & Shafer, 2018), such studies are limited for the dynamic navigation system. Most of these studies are confined to arbitrary case series without a valid control (Guo et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Aydemir

Arısan

2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the deviations of planned and placed implants placed by the assistance of a micron tracker‐based dynamic navigation device or freehand methods. Material and methods A thermoplastic fiducial marker was adapted on the anterior teeth, and cone‐beam computerized tomography was used for imaging. A minimum of one implant was planned for each side of the posterior maxilla, and the dynamic navigation device or freehand method was randomly used for surgical insertion. Deviations were measured by matching the planning data with a final CBCT image. Linear deviations (mm) between the planned and placed implants were the primary outcome. The results were analysed by generalized linear mixed models (p < .05). (NCT03471208). Results A total of 92 implants were placed to 32 volunteers, and 86 implants were included in the final analysis. For the linear deviations, mean of differences (Δ) was 0.72mm (Standard deviation (SD): 0.26); (95% Confidence interval (CI): 0.39–1.02) in the shoulder of the implants (p < .001) and 0.69mm (SD: 0.36); (95% CI: 0.19–1.19) in the tip of the implants (p < .001). For the angular deviations, Δ was 5.33° (SD: 1.63); (95% CI: 7.17–3.48); (p < .001). Conclusions The navigation technique can be used to transfer virtual implant planning to the patient's jaw with increased accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Aydemir

Arısan

2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accuracy of sCAIS is defined as the deviation between the planned and the actual position of an implant . 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 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kholy

Ebenezer

Wittneben

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of three different macrodesigns and two different insertion devices on the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS). Materials and Methods Ninety implant replicas with three different macrodesigns: Soft tissue level (TL), bone level (BL), and bone level tapered (BLT) were placed in 30 dental models with two implant insertion devices: Guided adapter and guided screwed‐in mount. Preoperative and postoperative positions of implants were compared and the mean angular deviation, crestal, and apical three‐dimensional (3D) deviation were calculated for each implant macrodesign and each insertion device. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, post hoc t‐tests and Bonferroni‐Holm's adjustment method. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. Results BLT implants had lower mean 3D deviation values at the crest and the apex when compared with 3D deviations with BL and TL implants (P < .05). Also, BLT implants had lower angular deviations, when compared with BL and TL Implants, however, angular deviations were not statistically significant (P > .05). Considering the insertion device method, no significant differences were noted between insertion devices irrespective of the deviation analyzed. Conclusion The macrodesign of dental implants may have an influence on the accuracy of sCAIS, with tapered designs offering slightly better positional accuracy than parallel‐walled macrodesigns independent on the method of insertion used.

show abstract

“…The accuracy of the sCAIS can be affected by several factors, including guide position, fixation, guide type, production method, flap approach, and method of implant insertion (Bover-Ramos, Vina-Almunia, Cervera-Ballester, Penarrocha-Diago, & Garcia-Mira, 2018;Jung et al, 2009;Pozzi et al, 2016;Raico Gallardo et al, 2017;Schneider et al, 2009;Tahmaseb et al, 2014;Van Assche et al, 2012;Zhou, Liu, Song, Kuo, & Shafer, 2018). Studies further highlighted the importance of guide fixation and stabilization as it has been shown that mobility of the surgical guide, during the implant bed preparation, can be responsible for high deviation values in the final implant position (Di Giacomo, Cury, Araujo, Sendyk, & Sendyk, 2005;Jung et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery

Kholy

Lazarin

Janner

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate the effect of surgical guide support and implant site location on the accuracy of static Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS) in partially edentulous patients. Materials and Methods 375 replica implants were inserted in 85 study models. Surgical implant placement was done using static 3D printed surgical guides, which were designed to be supported either by all the teeth present in the model (full arch), or by 4‐teeth), 3‐teeth or 2‐teeth. Each study model included three single‐tooth gap (STG) situations; one extraction socket site and two implants placed in a distal extension situation. Preplanned and postoperative implant positions were compared using the treatment‐evaluation tool in digital software. 3‐dimensional and angular deviations were measured. Statistical analysis was done using ANOVA, and pairwise t tests and Bonferroni‐Holm's adjustment were applied as a post hoc test. Results Accuracy of surgical guides used in sCAIS was significantly affected by the number and type of teeth used for its support. Guides supported by 4 teeth were not significantly different from accuracy of full‐arch‐supported guides (p > .05). Guide support by posterior teeth was associated with an increased level of accuracy, when compared to anterior teeth guide support. Implants placed in extraction sockets were associated with significantly higher 3D and angular deviation values (p < .05), and surgical guides with a distal extension situation resulted in significantly higher deviation values (p < .05). Conclusion The number and location of teeth supporting the surgical guide can significantly influence the accuracy of sCAIS, with 4 teeth providing equal accuracy to full‐arch guides in (STG) situations.

show abstract

Clinical Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cited by 158 publications

References 38 publications

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

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

Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About