The implant position accuracy between using only surgical drill guide and surgical drill guide with implant guide in fully digital workflow: a randomized clinical trial.
{"title":"The implant position accuracy between using only surgical drill guide and surgical drill guide with implant guide in fully digital workflow: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Chalermchai Ngamprasertkit, Weerapan Aunmeungthong, Pathawee Khongkhunthian","doi":"10.1007/s10006-021-00975-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To evaluate and compare accuracy in position and inclination of a single-tooth implant placement using tooth-supported surgical drill guide (SDG) and surgical drill guide with implant insertion guide (SDIG) in fully digital workflow.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thirty partially single edentulous patients were recruited. After randomization, participants were divided into 2 groups equally. The first group underwent implant placement through SDG only, while the second group was subjected to SDIG. All procedure proceeded under a fully digital workflow as the combination of digital scanning from an intraoral scanner, 3D radiographic images from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), implant planning software, and a 3D manufacturing machine. A post-operative CBCT was performed to compare the deviations (7 parameters) between planned and actual implant positions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean global deviations at the shoulder and apex were 0.74 ± 0.36 and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm, respectively in the SDG group and 0.48 ± 0.22 mm and 0.71 ± 0.31 mm, respectively in the SDIG group. Likewise, the other parameters in the SDIG group showed fewer deviations than SDG for all measurements. Statistically significant differences were indicated by all parameters except for the horizontal deviation at the implant shoulder (p < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In single-tooth implant placement with a tooth-supported guide using a computer-assisted (static) system with the SDIG could reduce deviations of actual implant position when compared with using SDG only. Besides, guided implant surgery by fully digital workflow is a practical procedure and provides precise implant position regarding the prosthetic-driven concept.</p>","PeriodicalId":520733,"journal":{"name":"Oral and maxillofacial surgery","volume":" ","pages":"229-237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10006-021-00975-7","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral and maxillofacial surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00975-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Background: To evaluate and compare accuracy in position and inclination of a single-tooth implant placement using tooth-supported surgical drill guide (SDG) and surgical drill guide with implant insertion guide (SDIG) in fully digital workflow.
Materials and methods: Thirty partially single edentulous patients were recruited. After randomization, participants were divided into 2 groups equally. The first group underwent implant placement through SDG only, while the second group was subjected to SDIG. All procedure proceeded under a fully digital workflow as the combination of digital scanning from an intraoral scanner, 3D radiographic images from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), implant planning software, and a 3D manufacturing machine. A post-operative CBCT was performed to compare the deviations (7 parameters) between planned and actual implant positions.
Results: The mean global deviations at the shoulder and apex were 0.74 ± 0.36 and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm, respectively in the SDG group and 0.48 ± 0.22 mm and 0.71 ± 0.31 mm, respectively in the SDIG group. Likewise, the other parameters in the SDIG group showed fewer deviations than SDG for all measurements. Statistically significant differences were indicated by all parameters except for the horizontal deviation at the implant shoulder (p < .05).
Conclusion: In single-tooth implant placement with a tooth-supported guide using a computer-assisted (static) system with the SDIG could reduce deviations of actual implant position when compared with using SDG only. Besides, guided implant surgery by fully digital workflow is a practical procedure and provides precise implant position regarding the prosthetic-driven concept.
背景:评估和比较全数字化工作流程中使用牙支撑式外科钻头导轨(SDG)和外科钻头导轨与种植体插入导轨(SDIG)放置单牙种植体的位置和倾斜精度。材料和方法:招募30例部分单侧无牙患者。随机化后,参与者平均分为两组。第一组仅通过SDG植入,第二组通过SDIG植入。所有手术都在全数字化的工作流程下进行,包括口腔内扫描仪的数字扫描、锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)的3D放射图像、种植体规划软件和3D制造机器。术后行CBCT比较计划种植体位置与实际种植体位置的偏差(7个参数)。结果:SDG组肩关节和尖端关节的平均整体偏差分别为0.74±0.36和1.29±0.61 mm, SDIG组分别为0.48±0.22和0.71±0.31 mm。同样,SDIG组的其他参数在所有测量中都比SDG显示出更少的偏差。除种植体肩部水平偏差外,其他参数均有统计学意义(p)。结论:在单牙种植体放置时,使用计算机辅助(静态)系统配合SDIG与仅使用SDG相比,可以减少种植体实际位置的偏差。此外,全数字化工作流程的引导种植手术是一个实用的过程,并提供精确的种植体位置,以假体驱动的概念。