Clinical factors influencing implant positioning by guided surgery using a nonmetal sleeve template in the partially edentulous ridge: Multiple regression analysis of a prospective cohort

Abstract

Objective: To determine the positional accuracy of implants placed with a threedimensionally printed template having nonmetal sleeves and to determine the contributing factors to observed deviations. Materials and Methods: One hundred and eighty-seven implants placed in 72 patients were analyzed. Presurgical intraoral scans and cone-beam computed tomography images obtained before and after surgery were superimposed, and vertical, angular, platform, and apex deviations were measured between the virtually planned and actually placed positions. A multiple linear regression model was designed for identifying the contributing factors. Statistical significance was set at p < .05, with Bonferroni correction if necessary (p < .0167). Results: A total of 187 implants demonstrated deviations of 0.65 [0.56, 0.75] mm

Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement by a Novel In-House Model-Free and Zero-Setup Fully Guided Surgical Template Made of a Light-Cured Composite Resin (VARO Guide®): A Comparative In Vitro Study

“…The accuracy of both VG and NG in the present study seemed reliable when compared to the outcomes from the previous experiments [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ] which reported that stereolithographic surgical guides caused angular and linear deviations ranging between 3° and 4° and 1 mm and 2 mm on average, respectively. Furthermore, a recent systematic review and a meta-analysis of 20 randomized clinical trials revealed that the total mean linear deviation of 1.2 mm (platform level) and 1.4 mm (apex level) and the total mean angular deviation of 3.5° [ 17 ] were similar to the ones observed in this study.…”

“…The preoperative and postoperative datasets with a merged layer of the abutment design were superimposed to each other using adjacent teeth as references. In the VG group, the angle and the centers of the platform and the apex of the virtually planned implant were determined based on the depth and axis of the drilling hole which had been formed in the VG, while those of the actually placed implant were deduced using the reverse engineering technique as explained in the previous study [ 14 ], visualizing inversely from the design of the abutment. In the NG group, both presurgical and postsurgical locations of the angle and the centers of the platform and the apex of the fixture were determined using the reverse engineering technique.…”

Comparison of Time Required for Guided Implant Site Preparation with Two Different Template Designs and Dedicated Surgical Kits: An In Vitro Study

“…It could be then no significant difference for the patient if extensive surgery is done guided or freehand and the same difference may be significant for less extensive surgery. Also accuracy of guided implant placement vary if that is a simple or complex surgery [6,19]. The same time required for accurate guide stabilization with bone anchors during extensive surgery may disappear when comparing time required to make similar surgery freehand without this process.…”

“…Analysis of in vitro and in vitro studies, as well as systematic reviews, clearly lead to the conclusion that using individual CAD/CAM (Computer-aided design/Computer-aided manufacturing) guides may be the best way to achieve great accuracy and remain in line with the concept of prosthetically driven treatment plan in implant dentistry [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Stereolithographic surgical guides are also one of the most popular application of 3D printing in oral and maxillofacial surgery [7][8][9].…”

“…Open frame plastic or metal guide Most studies focused on the accuracy of guided surgeries concluding that surgical template without metallic sleeves are more accurate than those where metal sleeves are incorporated, and certain mention that the surgery time during guided implant surgeries is shorter comparing to the free hand approach [2][3][4][5][12][13][14][15]. On the other hands, other studies also show limitations of guided approach [1,6,[16][17][18]. However, there is no literature comparing the time of surgery with different surgical template designs.…”