Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method

Schnutenhaus, Sigmar; Edelmann, Cornelia; Rudolph, Heike; Luthardt, Ralph G.

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2015.12.012

Cited by 47 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison of the planned and final implant position was performed using radiographic comparison with CT or CBCT in 19/20 studies with five different software systems being utilised. Only one study (Schnutenhaus, Edelmann, Rudolph & Luthardt, ) made comparisons of the implant positions using a final impression of the actual implant location. The impression was poured in stone and the implant locations digitised and compared to the pre‐treatment position using Geomagic software.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…specified that if tissue thickness was greater than 3.5 mm a flap was raised to reduce the effect of flap thickness on the accuracy of outcome. Smoking habits were not exclusion criteria for patient enrolment within the studies (Schnutenhaus et al., ). In an interesting manner, some implants that were placed using a flap‐less surgery protocol did not have a tissue punch procedure prior to drilling sequences (D'haese et al., ) As the early part of implant placement during guided surgery is unguided, the presence of thick dense tissue, which is not removed by tissue punches in a flapless approach, may alter the accuracy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, standardisation of the gantry angle is not known for many studies (Ersoy, Turkyilmaz, Ozan & McGlumphy, ). Few studies also specified the height of the guiding sleeves creating a possible error for alignment (Schnutenhaus et al., ). No studies prescribed an evaluation method of template fit prior to surgery nor an assessment of guide sleeve fit into the SLA produced guide.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tahmaseb

Wismeijer

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

355

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the literature on the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant surgery in implant dentistry. Materials and Methods Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information about the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant systems. Meta‐regression analysis was performed to summarise the accuracy studies. Results From a total of 372 articles. 20 studies, one randomised controlled trial (RCT), eight uncontrolled retrospective studies and 11 uncontrolled prospective studies were selected for inclusion for qualitative synthesis. A total of 2,238 implants in 471 patients that had been placed using static guides were available for review. The meta‐analysis of the accuracy (20 clinical) revealed a total mean error of 1.2 mm (1.04 mm to 1.44 mm) at the entry point, 1.4 mm (1.28 mm to 1.58 mm) at the apical point and deviation of 3.5°(3.0° to 3.96°). There was a significant difference in accuracy in favour of partial edentulous comparing to full edentulous cases. Conclusion Different levels of quantity and quality of evidence were available for static computer‐aided implant surgery (s‐CAIS). Based on the present systematic review and its limitations, it can be concluded that the accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery is within the clinically acceptable range in the majority of clinical situations. However, a safety marge of at least 2 mm should be respected. A lack of homogeneity was found in techniques adopted between the different authors and the general study designs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tahmaseb

Wismeijer

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

355

275

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 Some studies have examined the influence of the manufacturing process of a template on the accuracy achieved, [6][7][8] while others concerned themselves with the influence of different types of template support. [9][10][11][12] Other factors influencing accuracy were the type of edentulous space, 13 the nature of the remaining teeth, 14,15 the implant system used, 16 and the surgical approach (flap vs flapless 17 or delayed vs immediate placement 18 ). Some studies also examined how the accuracy of template-supported implant placement performed in general, compared with free-handed placement.…”

Section: B Ac Kgr Oundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the match between cone beam computed tomography and model scan data in template‐guided implant planning: A prospective controlled clinical study

Schnutenhaus

Gröller

Luthardt

et al. 2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The digital registration method used in this study was based on several methods introduced in previous studies and demonstrates some progress in tooth position measurement . Unlike previous studies, this study measured buccolingual and mesiodistal direction deviations directly from the planned and postoperative implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors that Influence Direction Deviation in Freehand Implant Placement

Tang

Huang

Liao

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This retrospective study investigates the accuracy of freehand implant placement and whether the factors of presence of an adjacent tooth, implant quadrant, number of missing teeth, and location of the implant site influence direction and angulation deviations. Materials and Methods: According to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 112 implants from 75 partially edentulous patients were recruited for this retrospective study. The implants were inserted using a freehand approach by one experienced clinician (right-handed). The full thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar bone in the implant surgery, and the implant crown consisted of an all-ceramic restoration retained by cement. The planned implant position was preoperatively determined using implant planning software. The postoperative implant position was determined by analyzing the alignment after optically scanning the dentition using a specifically designed registration model in Geomagic Studio software. The deviations between the planned and postoperative implant positions were then calculated. The outcomes included direction and angulation deviations between the planned and postoperative implant positions. All data were analyzed by ANOVA, Bonferroni correction, regression analysis, and one-sample t-tests conducted using SPSS. Results: The 3D deviations between planned and postoperative implant positions were 1.22 ± 0.63 mm at the entrance point, 1.91 ± 1.17 mm at the apical point, and 7.93 ± 5.56°in angulation. The presence of adjacent teeth influenced deviations in the mesiodistal (F = 4.338, p = 0.006) and buccolingual directions (F = 3.017, p = 0.033) at the entrance point and mesiodistal angulation (F = 7.979, p < 0.001). The quadrant influenced deviation in the buccolingual direction at the apical point (F = 6.093, p = 0.001) and buccolingual angulation (F = 6.457, p < 0.001). The number of missing teeth had no effect on deviations of direction and angulation of implants. The location of the implant site affected the deviation in the buccolingual direction at the entrance point (F = 3.096, p = 0.049) and the mesiodistal direction at the apical point (F = 3.724, p = 0.027). Conclusion: The 3D accuracy of freehand-placed implants could be acceptable in clinical situations. The results showed that the presence of an adjacent tooth and the quadrant and the location of the implant site influenced the direction and angulation deviations of the implant position; however, the factor of number of missing teeth did not.Proper positioning and angulation of implants are vital for acquiring ideal prosthetic outcomes and reconstructing certain occlusal relationships. 1,2 A lack of accuracy can lead to a variety of complications, such as implant dehiscence and damage to vital anatomic structures.Using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and related computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical template techniques, implant insertion can be conducted under the guidance of the preoperative design. 3 N...

show abstract

Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method

Cited by 47 publications

References 25 publications

The accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Accuracy of the match between cone beam computed tomography and model scan data in template‐guided implant planning: A prospective controlled clinical study

Factors that Influence Direction Deviation in Freehand Implant Placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About