Accuracy of fully guided dental implant placement: A prospective clinical in-vivo investigation using intraoral scan data.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Insa Herklotz, Florian Beuer, Maria Bruhnke, Jan Zoske, Mats Wernfried, Heinrich Böse
{"title":"Accuracy of fully guided dental implant placement: A prospective clinical in-vivo investigation using intraoral scan data.","authors":"Insa Herklotz,&nbsp;Florian Beuer,&nbsp;Maria Bruhnke,&nbsp;Jan Zoske,&nbsp;Mats Wernfried,&nbsp;Heinrich Böse","doi":"10.3290/j.ijcd.b3762753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the planned implant position (PIP) with the transferred implant position (TIP) after fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Dental implant placements were planned using two different implant systems (Camlog Screw-Line [C-SL] and Straumann Bone Level Tapered [S-BLT]), and two different planning software programs (SMOP and coDiagnostiX). All implants were placed according to fully guided protocols, and intraoral scans were performed intraoperatively. For the comparison of PIP and TIP, scan data were imported to Geomagic Control X (GCX) software and accuracies were evaluated. Deviations were reported in a coordinate system (x- [mesiodistal], y- [vestibulo-oral], and z- [vertical] axis) at entry points and apices. Total deviations, including angular deviations, were calculated with GCX. For statistical analysis, the level of significance was set to P < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six patients received 26 implants. Mean 3D deviation at the implant's entry point was 0.61 mm ± 0.28 for C-SL and 0.63 mm ± 0.24 for S-BLT. For the implant's apex, mean 3D deviation of 0.96 mm ± 0.41 was documented for C-SL and 1.04 mm ± 0.34 for S-BLT. Mean angular deviation was 2.58 degrees ± 1.40 for C-SL and 2.89 degrees ± 1.12 for S-BLT. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between implant systems, but showed significant deviations regarding the z-axis, both at entry point and apex (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps provide accurate results. Due to significant vertical deviations, reevaluation of both drilling and insertion depths prior to implant installation should be considered. Maintenance of 1.5- to 2-mm safety distances to critical structures was confirmed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48666,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","volume":"26 2","pages":"137-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ijcd.b3762753","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare the planned implant position (PIP) with the transferred implant position (TIP) after fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps.

Materials and methods: Dental implant placements were planned using two different implant systems (Camlog Screw-Line [C-SL] and Straumann Bone Level Tapered [S-BLT]), and two different planning software programs (SMOP and coDiagnostiX). All implants were placed according to fully guided protocols, and intraoral scans were performed intraoperatively. For the comparison of PIP and TIP, scan data were imported to Geomagic Control X (GCX) software and accuracies were evaluated. Deviations were reported in a coordinate system (x- [mesiodistal], y- [vestibulo-oral], and z- [vertical] axis) at entry points and apices. Total deviations, including angular deviations, were calculated with GCX. For statistical analysis, the level of significance was set to P < 0.05.

Results: Twenty-six patients received 26 implants. Mean 3D deviation at the implant's entry point was 0.61 mm ± 0.28 for C-SL and 0.63 mm ± 0.24 for S-BLT. For the implant's apex, mean 3D deviation of 0.96 mm ± 0.41 was documented for C-SL and 1.04 mm ± 0.34 for S-BLT. Mean angular deviation was 2.58 degrees ± 1.40 for C-SL and 2.89 degrees ± 1.12 for S-BLT. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between implant systems, but showed significant deviations regarding the z-axis, both at entry point and apex (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps provide accurate results. Due to significant vertical deviations, reevaluation of both drilling and insertion depths prior to implant installation should be considered. Maintenance of 1.5- to 2-mm safety distances to critical structures was confirmed.

完全引导种植体放置的准确性:一项使用口腔内扫描数据的前瞻性临床体内研究。
目的:比较单牙间隙全引导种植体放置后计划种植体位置(PIP)与转移种植体位置(TIP)的差异。材料和方法:使用两种不同的种植体系统(Camlog Screw-Line [C-SL]和Straumann Bone Level Tapered [S-BLT])和两种不同的计划软件程序(SMOP和coDiagnostiX)计划种植体的放置。所有种植体均按照完全指导方案放置,术中进行口内扫描。为了比较PIP和TIP,将扫描数据导入Geomagic Control X (GCX)软件并对精度进行评估。据报道,在进入点和尖端的坐标系统(x-[中远端],y-[前庭-口腔]和z-[垂直]轴)出现偏差。用GCX计算总偏差,包括角偏差。以P < 0.05进行统计学分析。结果:26例患者共植入26枚。C-SL和S-BLT在种植体入口点的平均3D偏差分别为0.61 mm±0.28和0.63 mm±0.24。对于种植体顶端,C-SL的平均3D偏差为0.96 mm±0.41,S-BLT的平均3D偏差为1.04 mm±0.34。C-SL的平均角偏差为2.58°±1.40°,S-BLT的平均角偏差为2.89°±1.12°。统计分析显示,不同种植体系统间无显著差异,但在z轴上,在入口点和顶点均有显著差异(P < 0.05)。结论:完全引导种植体放置在单牙间隙提供准确的结果。由于明显的垂直偏差,应考虑在植入假体之前重新评估钻孔和植入深度。确认与关键结构保持1.5至2mm的安全距离。
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
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: This journal explores the myriad innovations in the emerging field of computerized dentistry and how to integrate them into clinical practice. The bulk of the journal is devoted to the science of computer-assisted dentistry, with research articles and clinical reports on all aspects of computer-based diagnostic and therapeutic applications, with special emphasis placed on CAD/CAM and image-processing systems. Articles also address the use of computer-based communication to support patient care, assess the quality of care, and enhance clinical decision making. The journal is presented in a bilingual format, with each issue offering three types of articles: science-based, application-based, and national society reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信