Evaluation of accuracy in implant site preparation performed in single- or multi-step drilling procedures

Marheineke, Nadine; Scherer, Uta; Rücker, Martin; See, Constantin von; Rahlf, Björn; Gellrich, Nils‐Claudius; Stoetzer, Marcus

doi:10.1007/s00784-017-2312-y

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, as per earlier studies, inexperienced clinicians may benefit from FG implant placement [12][13][14]. For example, Rungcharassaeng et al found that the FG protocol reduced differences between experienced and inexperienced operators for placing single posterior implants no difference between experienced and inexperienced operators when FG protocol guides were used, while the differences became obvious when implants were placed without surgical guides [13,14]. According to Schulz et al, in the hand of final-year dental students, FG implant placement was more accurate than PG implant placement [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…However, this hypothesis cannot be accepted for the PG and FH protocols as the anterior implants were generally more accurate than the posterior implants. Therefore, as per earlier studies, inexperienced clinicians may benefit from FG implant placement [12][13][14]. For example, Rungcharassaeng et al found that the FG protocol reduced differences between experienced and inexperienced operators for placing single posterior implants no difference between experienced and inexperienced operators when FG protocol guides were used, while the differences became obvious when implants were placed without surgical guides [13,14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…On the contrary, the PG protocol inaccuracy seemed comparable to the FH protocol, which could be due to the execution of most of the drilling steps and implant placement without the use of guides, leading to inevitable deviation of the drills and implant placement. This is further accentuated in the hands of inexperienced operators who may not precisely control the subsequent drilling steps [14,15]. While the actual difference between the FG and PG protocols in all the variables is minimal, and still within the recommended safety zone of 2 mm [17], it can still be of clinical significance in cases where the available bone is limited, surgical site is compromised, and the implant is in close proximity to natural teeth and vital anatomical structures [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent study reported that the length of the sleeve and the drilling distance influenced the accuracy of guided surgery [18]. Further, the presence of debris within the osteotomy can prevent complete seating of the implant [14], which was observed in our study and another study, where the FG protocol implants were more coronal than the planned implants [12]. In clinical situations, more errors are anticipated from CBCT and 3D segmentation of the hard tissues prior to virtual implant planning [23,24] and patientrelated factors such as movement, limited visibility due to the presence of blood, and limited visual access [7,8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, it has been proposed that implant placement according to sCAIP protocols are easier, simpler, and more predictable than conventional implant placements [11][12][13]. Some studies showed that the accuracy of sCAIP implants is less influenced by the lack of experience of the operator [12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols

Abduo

Lau

2020

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry. Material and methods: Ten clinicians new to implant dentistry inserted one anterior (central incisor) and one posterior (first molar) implants per protocol in training maxillary models. The FG protocol involved drilling and implant placement through the guide, while the PG protocol controlled the pilot drilling only. The FH implant placement was completed without the aid of any guide. A total of 30 models were used, and 60 implants were inserted. The implant vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations from planned positions were calculated. Results: The FG protocol provided the most accurate implant placement in relation to horizontal neck (0.47 mm-0.52 mm), horizontal apex (0.71 mm-0.74 mm), and angle deviations (2.42 o -2.61 o ). The vertical deviation was not significantly different among the different protocols. The PG protocol was generally similar to the FH protocol with a horizontal neck deviation of 1.01 mm-1.14 mm, horizontal apex deviation of 1.02 mm-1.35 mm, and angle deviation of 4.65 o -7.79 o . The FG protocol showed similarity in the accuracy of the anterior and posterior implants. There was a tendency for inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants for the PG and FH protocols. Conclusions: In the hands of recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry, it appears that the accuracy of the FG protocol was superior to the other protocols and was not influenced by the position of the implants. The PG and FH protocols showed inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols

Abduo

Lau

2020

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Peripheral Bone Removal versus Sequential Drilling Protocol in Dental Implant Surgery: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

Alhamdani,

Hassan,

Hussein

2023

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the immediate success rate between peripheral bone removal (PBR) and conventional sequential drilling protocols. Materials and Methods Biographic data of 130 Iraqi patients who attended a private dental implant center in Baghdad between January 7, 2018 and February 30, 2023 were collected. During this period, 198 dental implant procedures were completed. The recorded data included the zone of implantation, immediate or delayed implant, sinus lift procedure, dental implant system, bone augmentation, and dental implant length and diameter. Statistical Analysis SPSS Ver. 25 was used for statistical analysis. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were applied. Results In total, 198 dental implant procedures were performed during the study period. Of these, 104 cases were treated with the PBR protocol and 94 with the conventional drilling protocol. Out of 130 patients included in this study, 70 were treated with the PBR (IBS) technique and 60 patients were treated with the conventional dental implant systems. The early success of osseointegration reported in this study for all of the cases exceeded 93%. The PBR protocol was successful in 96 cases (92.3%), whereas early success of osseointegration in patients treated with the conventional protocol was reported in 89 cases (94.7%). The chi-squared test showed no statistically significant difference in the early success rate between the two dental implant protocols (p = 0.575). Conclusion In terms of immediate success, the PBR technique appears to be a reliable drilling technique. However, further longitudinal studies need to explore its potential to replace the sequential drilling protocol.

show abstract

Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial

Søndergaard

Hosseini

Jensen

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare fully guided with conventionally guided implant surgery performed by dental students in terms of deviation of actual implant position from an ideal implant position. Materials and methods Twenty‐five patients in need of 26 straightforward implant‐supported single crowns were randomly allocated to a fully guided (FG, n = 14) or a conventionally guided (CG, n = 12) implant surgery. In the preoperative CBCTs, 3 experienced investigators placed a virtual implant in the ideal position, twice, allowing deviational analysis in the facio‐lingual (coronal) and mesio‐distal (sagittal) planes for 7 parameters. Facio‐lingual crestal deviation, facio‐lingual apical deviation, facio‐lingual angular deviation, mesio‐distal crestal deviation, mesio‐distal apical deviation, mesio‐distal angular deviation, and vertical deviation between the ideal, virtually placed position and actual implant position for the FG and CG groups were compared statistically (p < .05). Results Statistically significant differences between ideal and actual implant position were only seen for the facio‐lingual apical deviation (p = .047) and for the facio‐lingual angular deviation (p = .019), where the CG group deviated more from the ideal position than the FG group. The 5 other examined variables did not show any significant differences, and none of the implants in the FG group and CG group were placed in conflict with the clinical guidelines. Conclusions The present study reported no difference in 5 out of 7 deviational parameters concerning actual implant position in relation to ideal implant position between a FG and CG implant placement protocol performed by dental students. Facio‐lingual angular deviation and apical deviation were lower, when a FG protocol was followed. All implants were positioned according to clinical guidelines.

show abstract

Evaluation of accuracy in implant site preparation performed in single- or multi-step drilling procedures

Cited by 13 publications

References 49 publications

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols

Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols

Peripheral Bone Removal versus Sequential Drilling Protocol in Dental Implant Surgery: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

Fully versus conventionally guided implant placement by dental students: A randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About