The Effect of Different Socket Morphologies of a Maxillary Central Incisor on the Accuracy of Immediate Implants Placed With Freehand or Guided Surgery—An In Vitro Study

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1111/clr.14419

Gunjan Pruthi, Roy Judge, Jaafar Abduo, Luan Ngo, Attila Gergely

{"title":"The Effect of Different Socket Morphologies of a Maxillary Central Incisor on the Accuracy of Immediate Implants Placed With Freehand or Guided Surgery—An In Vitro Study","authors":"Gunjan Pruthi, Roy Judge, Jaafar Abduo, Luan Ngo, Attila Gergely","doi":"10.1111/clr.14419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the effect of socket morphology of a maxillary central incisor on accuracy of single implants placed with freehand or static guided surgery in simulated extraction sockets.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An anatomic central incisor was digitally designed and subtracted from the model to create socket morphology 1 (SM1), socket morphology 2 (SM2), and socket morphology 3 (SM3) simulating a central, retroclined, and proclined tooth. 90 implants were placed with freehand (FH); pilot guided (PG) and fully guided (FG) protocols in 30 models of SM1, SM2 and SM3 each. Implant accuracy was measured for vertical deviation (MVP), maximum horizontal deviation at implant platform (MHP) and apex (MHA), buccolingual (BLP, BLA), mesiodistal (MDP, MDA), and global angular deviation (GAD) deviations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The effect of interaction between SM and protocol was significant only on MVP (<i>p</i> = 0.03) and GAD (<i>p</i> = 0.000). Individual effect of SM was significant for all variables except mesiodistal deviation. Significant difference was observed among all groups for MHA and BLP, between SM1 and SM2 for all variables except mesiodistal deviation, between SM2 and SM3 for MHP and SM1 and SM3 for BLA (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Implant accuracy was almost similar with FG or PG protocol (<i>p</i> > 0.05) except for MVP (FG vs. PG = 0.01). Buccolingual inaccuracies of implants were higher than mesiodistal deviations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Vertical, horizontal, and angular deviations were highest in SM2 and least in group SM1. Within each socket, higher implant accuracy was observed with guided protocols than freehand placement. Results of this in vitro study should be interpreted with caution as the outcome may be different in real clinical settings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"36 6","pages":"710-724"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14419","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14419","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the effect of socket morphology of a maxillary central incisor on accuracy of single implants placed with freehand or static guided surgery in simulated extraction sockets.

Materials and Methods

An anatomic central incisor was digitally designed and subtracted from the model to create socket morphology 1 (SM1), socket morphology 2 (SM2), and socket morphology 3 (SM3) simulating a central, retroclined, and proclined tooth. 90 implants were placed with freehand (FH); pilot guided (PG) and fully guided (FG) protocols in 30 models of SM1, SM2 and SM3 each. Implant accuracy was measured for vertical deviation (MVP), maximum horizontal deviation at implant platform (MHP) and apex (MHA), buccolingual (BLP, BLA), mesiodistal (MDP, MDA), and global angular deviation (GAD) deviations.

Results

The effect of interaction between SM and protocol was significant only on MVP (p = 0.03) and GAD (p = 0.000). Individual effect of SM was significant for all variables except mesiodistal deviation. Significant difference was observed among all groups for MHA and BLP, between SM1 and SM2 for all variables except mesiodistal deviation, between SM2 and SM3 for MHP and SM1 and SM3 for BLA (p < 0.05). Implant accuracy was almost similar with FG or PG protocol (p > 0.05) except for MVP (FG vs. PG = 0.01). Buccolingual inaccuracies of implants were higher than mesiodistal deviations.

Conclusions

Vertical, horizontal, and angular deviations were highest in SM2 and least in group SM1. Within each socket, higher implant accuracy was observed with guided protocols than freehand placement. Results of this in vitro study should be interpreted with caution as the outcome may be different in real clinical settings.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

上颌中切牙不同牙槽形态对徒手或引导手术即刻种植精度的影响——体外研究

目的探讨上颌中切牙槽形态对徒手或静态引导下单种植体模拟拔牙槽精度的影响。材料与方法对解剖型中切牙进行数字化设计，并从模型中提取出模拟中牙、后倾牙和前倾牙的牙槽形态1 （SM1）、牙槽形态2 （SM2）和牙槽形态3 （SM3）。90个种植体采用徒手放置；在SM1、SM2和SM3各30个模型中分别采用试点引导（PG）和完全引导（FG）协议。测量种植体垂直偏差（MVP）、种植体平台和顶端最大水平偏差（MHP）、颊舌偏差（BLP、BLA）、中远端偏差（MDP、MDA）和全局角偏差（GAD）。结果SM与协议交互作用仅对MVP （p = 0.03）和GAD （p = 0.000）有显著影响。除中远端偏差外，SM的个体效应在所有变量上均显著。各组间MHA和BLP、SM1和SM2之间除中远端偏差外的所有变量、MHP的SM2和SM3之间、BLA的SM1和SM3之间均存在显著差异(p <；0.05)。植入物的准确性与FG或PG方案几乎相似(p >；0.05)， MVP除外（FG vs. PG = 0.01）。种植体的颊舌不准确性高于中远端偏差。结论SM2组的垂直、水平和角度偏差最大，SM1组最小。在每个套孔内，指导方案比徒手放置观察到更高的种植精度。这项体外研究的结果应谨慎解释，因为在实际临床环境中结果可能不同。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.