2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02001.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Virtually planned and template-guided implant surgery: an experimental model matching approach

Abstract: Statistically significant differences were observed in positions between the implant replicas in the pre-operative plaster models created from a CAD/CAM surgical template and the implant replicas in the post-operative plaster models that were made from patients' impressions taken at ≥1-year follow-up. Due to the lack of reference objects in the pre- and post-operative working casts, additional refinements are required in order to validate the impression matching method and recommend the method to be used.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
50
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The type effect is higher than the model effect and random noise for apical (0.71 vs 0.23 and 0.15) and degree (3.91 vs 2.14 and 2.33), while the model effect has the similar magnitude as random noise. In general, greater deviations were found using voxel‐based registration at the apex than at the entry point, which mirrored findings in previous investigations . Clinically, deviations at the entry or shoulder of the implants hinder correct fitting of a prefabricated prosthesis and require adaptation of fit or occlusion and deviations at the implant apex are to be expected.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The type effect is higher than the model effect and random noise for apical (0.71 vs 0.23 and 0.15) and degree (3.91 vs 2.14 and 2.33), while the model effect has the similar magnitude as random noise. In general, greater deviations were found using voxel‐based registration at the apex than at the entry point, which mirrored findings in previous investigations . Clinically, deviations at the entry or shoulder of the implants hinder correct fitting of a prefabricated prosthesis and require adaptation of fit or occlusion and deviations at the implant apex are to be expected.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Human error remains an uncontrollable factor throughout all the steps involved in guided implant placement and three‐dimensional planning. The total sum of potential errors during each step has not been fully evaluated . The data obtained by this in vitro study demonstrate that the accuracy of the proposed system would be sufficient for clinical practice, particularly in terms of the transfer precision of three‐dimensional implant planning.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter is well illustrated by Komiyama et al. () who compared the accuracy analysed via CBCT (Pettersson et al. 2010a) with an accuracy evaluation by comparing matching pre‐ and postoperative models of the patient jaw (Komiyama et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…[24][25][26][27] Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental implant placement using only bone-supported stereolithographic templates in edentulous ridges. [24][25][26][27] Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental implant placement using only bone-supported stereolithographic templates in edentulous ridges.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%