Implant Placement Accuracy When Using Stereolithographic Template as a Surgical Guide: Preliminary Results

Abstract

When measured using the CMM, the stereolithographic surgical template was sufficiently accurate in transferring the planned implant position to the surgical field relative to the implant angulations and point of entrance. Further clinical studies using a greater number of patients are needed to confirm the results of this study.

An Accuracy Study of Computer‐Planned Implant Placement in the Augmented Maxilla Using Mucosa‐Supported Surgical Templates

“…To the best knowledge of the authors, no studies were performed on the accuracy of virtually planned implant placement in the fully edentulous maxilla after an augmentation procedure. Also, in contrast to many other accuracy studies without augmentation procedure, the result of this study was interpreted in a clinically relevant manner by decomposing three‐dimensional results into the BL and MD directions.…”

A Clinically Relevant Accuracy Study of Computer-Planned Implant Placement in the Edentulous Maxilla Using Mucosa-Supported Surgical Templates

“…In this study, deviations between planned and postoperative implant position, implant deviations were determined in a clinically relevant manner, that is, decomposed in a BL and MD vector, and not solely in a three‐dimensional distance as performed in most other studies …”

“…Several studies showed in vivo results on the accuracy of implant placement using surgical templates. However, most of these studies presented accuracy results consisting of a combination of fully edentulous and partially edentulous, different types of support of the surgical template and implant placement in both mandible and maxilla …”

Virtual planning and construction of prototyped surgical guide in implant surgery with maxillary sinus bone graft

“…There is a lack of articles in the literature addressing the efficacy of the transference of images from the study of implant placement to the surgical field 29 . Di Giacomo et al 30 used six surgical guides in four patients with 21 implants inserted and observed differences in the distances between the planned and actual implant positions at the implant level of, in average, 1.45mm and 2.99mm, respectively.…”