Digital versus radiographic evaluation for guided implant surgery: an in vitro study

Abstract

Background: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the most widely used method for postsurgical evaluation of the accuracy of guided implant surgery. However, the disadvantages of CBCT include radiation exposure, artifacts caused by metal implants, and high cost. Few studies have introduced a digital registration method to replace CBCT for evaluating the accuracy of guided surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare digital registration to conventional CBCT in terms of the capacity to evaluate the implant positioning accuracy of guided surgery. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study included 40 acrylic resin models with posterior single mandibular tooth loss. Guided surgery software was used to determine the optimal implant position; 40 tooth-supported fully guided drilling templates were designed and milled accordingly. After the guided surgery, the accuracies of the surgical templates were evaluated by conventional CBCT and digital registration. For evaluation by conventional CBCT, postsurgical CBCT scans of the resin models were performed. The CBCT data were reconstructed and superimposed on the implant planning data. For digital registration, we constructed a virtual registration unit that consisted of an implant replica and a scan body. Next, we obtained postsurgical optical scans of resin models with the scan body. The postsurgical implant position was identified by superimposition of the registration unit and optical scan data. The implant planning data and postsurgical implant position data were superimposed; deviations were reported in terms of distance for implant entry/apex point and in terms of angle for the implant axis. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots were used to analyze the agreement between the two evaluation methods. Results: The ICCs between the two methods were 0.986, 0.993, and 0.968 for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all were significantly greater than 0.75 (p < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots showed that the 95% limits of agreement of the differences were − 0.144 to + 0.081 mm, − 0.135 to + 0.147 mm, and − 0.451° to + 0.729° for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all values were within the maximum tolerated difference. Conclusion: Conventional CBCT and digital registration showed good agreement in terms of evaluating the accuracy of implant positioning using tooth-supported surgical templates.