{"title":"新临床医生在窄脊中静态计算机辅助种植体放置的准确性。","authors":"Jaafar Abduo, Radhwan Himmadi Hasan, Douglas Lau","doi":"10.1055/s-0045-1802949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical impact of implant placement by novice implant clinicians in the narrow anterior ridge by fully guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placements.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> A maxillary surgical model with missing incisors and a narrow ridge was designed. Two implants were planned in the lateral incisor locations to receive screw-retained implant prosthesis. Fifteen novice implant clinicians placed implants according to every placement. Angle, vertical and horizontal platform, and horizontal apex deviations from the planned implant were measured. The clinical impact evaluation aimed to relate the position of each placed implant to (1) periimplant bone dimension after implant placement and (2) the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The FG implants were more accurate than PG implants at the angle (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and maximum horizontal apex deviations (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and were more accurate than FH implants for all comparisons (<i>p</i> = 0.001). The PG implants were superior to FH implants at the maximal horizontal platform deviation (<i>p</i> = 0.001). All FG implants were fully covered with bone and could be restored with screw-retained prostheses. One PG implant (3.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one PG implant (3.3%) could not be restored with screw-retained prosthesis. Seven FH implants (23.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one FH implant (3.3%) suffered from dehiscence. Seven FH implants (23.3%) were not restorable with screw-retained prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> For novice clinicians, a significantly greater accuracy was observed for FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements. FH implants experienced significant compromise of periimplant bone dimension and the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p>","PeriodicalId":12028,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Placement in Narrow Ridge by Novice Clinicians.\",\"authors\":\"Jaafar Abduo, Radhwan Himmadi Hasan, Douglas Lau\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0045-1802949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical impact of implant placement by novice implant clinicians in the narrow anterior ridge by fully guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placements.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> A maxillary surgical model with missing incisors and a narrow ridge was designed. Two implants were planned in the lateral incisor locations to receive screw-retained implant prosthesis. Fifteen novice implant clinicians placed implants according to every placement. Angle, vertical and horizontal platform, and horizontal apex deviations from the planned implant were measured. The clinical impact evaluation aimed to relate the position of each placed implant to (1) periimplant bone dimension after implant placement and (2) the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The FG implants were more accurate than PG implants at the angle (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and maximum horizontal apex deviations (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and were more accurate than FH implants for all comparisons (<i>p</i> = 0.001). The PG implants were superior to FH implants at the maximal horizontal platform deviation (<i>p</i> = 0.001). All FG implants were fully covered with bone and could be restored with screw-retained prostheses. One PG implant (3.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one PG implant (3.3%) could not be restored with screw-retained prosthesis. Seven FH implants (23.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one FH implant (3.3%) suffered from dehiscence. Seven FH implants (23.3%) were not restorable with screw-retained prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> For novice clinicians, a significantly greater accuracy was observed for FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements. FH implants experienced significant compromise of periimplant bone dimension and the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802949\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Placement in Narrow Ridge by Novice Clinicians.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical impact of implant placement by novice implant clinicians in the narrow anterior ridge by fully guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placements.
Materials and methods: A maxillary surgical model with missing incisors and a narrow ridge was designed. Two implants were planned in the lateral incisor locations to receive screw-retained implant prosthesis. Fifteen novice implant clinicians placed implants according to every placement. Angle, vertical and horizontal platform, and horizontal apex deviations from the planned implant were measured. The clinical impact evaluation aimed to relate the position of each placed implant to (1) periimplant bone dimension after implant placement and (2) the prosthesis retention mechanism.
Results: The FG implants were more accurate than PG implants at the angle (p = 0.001) and maximum horizontal apex deviations (p = 0.001), and were more accurate than FH implants for all comparisons (p = 0.001). The PG implants were superior to FH implants at the maximal horizontal platform deviation (p = 0.001). All FG implants were fully covered with bone and could be restored with screw-retained prostheses. One PG implant (3.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one PG implant (3.3%) could not be restored with screw-retained prosthesis. Seven FH implants (23.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one FH implant (3.3%) suffered from dehiscence. Seven FH implants (23.3%) were not restorable with screw-retained prosthesis.
Conclusion: For novice clinicians, a significantly greater accuracy was observed for FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements. FH implants experienced significant compromise of periimplant bone dimension and the prosthesis retention mechanism.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Dentistry is the official journal of the Dental Investigations Society, based in Turkey. It is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, Open Access, multi-disciplinary international journal addressing various aspects of dentistry. The journal''s board consists of eminent investigators in dentistry from across the globe and presents an ideal international composition. The journal encourages its authors to submit original investigations, reviews, and reports addressing various divisions of dentistry including oral pathology, prosthodontics, endodontics, orthodontics etc. It is available both online and in print.