Accuracy of mucosa supported guided dental implant surgery

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of autonomous robotic and fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) performed on models and patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was divided into in vitro and in vivo sections. In vitro, 80 operators were assigned to two groups randomly. Forty operators performed forty autonomous robotic implant (ARI group) surgeries and the remaining forty operators carried out forty fully guided sCAIS (FGI group) surgeries on maxillary models, respectively. Each operator placed an implant in one maxillary model. In vivo, 60 patients with 113 implants from 2019 to 2023 (ARI group: 32 patients, 58 implants; FGI group: 28 patients, 55 implants) receiving implant surgeries were incorporated in this retrospective research. The preoperative and postoperative cone beam computer tomographs (CBCTs) were utilized to estimate the linear deviations and angular deviations in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) space. The Pearson's chi-square test, Shapiro-Wilk test, Student's t test, Mann-Whitney U test and mixed models were applied, and p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In vitro, a total of 80 implants were enrolled and significant differences were found between the two groups (p < 0.001): The 3D deviation at the platform of ARI and FGI group was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.50 ± 1.46 mm, respectively, at the apex was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.78 ± 1.35 mm, respectively, and angle was 1.01 ± 0.87° and 2.93 ± 1.59°, respectively. Also, except for mesiodistal deviation at the implant platform, the rest linear and angular deviations in the ARI group were significantly lower than those in the FGI group in 2D space (p < 0.001). In vivo, a significantly lower mean of angular deviation (0.95 ± 0.50°, p < 0.001) and the linear deviation at both platform (0.45 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) and apex (0.47 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) were observed in ARI group when compared to the FGI group (4.31 ± 2.60°; 1.45 ± 1.27 mm; 1.77 ± 1.14 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of autonomous robotic technology showed significantly higher accuracy than the fully guided sCAIS.

Advancing accuracy in guided implant placement: A comprehensive meta-analysis: Meta-Analysis evaluation of the accuracy of available implant placement Methods

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to determine the accuracy of currently available computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) modalities under in vitro conditions and investigate whether these novel techniques can achieve clinically acceptable accuracy.

DATA

In vitro studies comparing the postoperative implant position with the preoperative plan were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (QUIN Tool) and a sensitivity analysis was conducted using funnel plots.

SOURCES

A systematic search was performed on April 18, 2023, using the following three databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. No filters or restrictions were applied during the search.

RESULTS

A total of 5,894 studies were included following study selection. Robotic- and static CAIS (sCAIS) had the most accurate and clinically acceptable outcomes. sCAIS was further divided according to the guidance level. Among the sCAIS groups, fully guided implant placement had the greatest accuracy. Augmented reality-based CAIS (AR-based CAIS) had clinically acceptable results for all the outcomes except for apical global deviation. Dynamic CAIS (dCAIS) demonstrated clinically safe results, except for horizontal apical deviation. Freehand implant placement was associated with the greatest number of errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully guided sCAIS demonstrated the most predictable outcomes, whereas freehand sCAIS demonstrated the lowest accuracy. AR-based and robotic CAIS may be promising alternatives.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of robotic CAIS and investigate the accuracy of various CAIS modalities.

Accuracy of a guided implant system with milled surgical templates

PURPOSE

This in vitro study analyzed the accuracy of a computer-assisted design (CAD)/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM) guided implant surgery system by comparing linear, angular, and coronal deviations between the planned and final implant placement.

METHODS

By using a fully guided surgery workflow, 32 dental implants were placed in 16 partially edentulous models. After virtual design of the restorations, radiological and CAD files were matched and implant positions were planned by using dedicated implant planning software (Galileo Implant version 1.9.2.). Templates were designed (Cerec Omnicam) and milled (Cerec MC XL) by using chairside workflow. Galileo Implant version 1.9.2. was used to evaluate accuracy.

RESULTS

Mean horizontal and angular-coronal total deviation values were 0.2 mm (SD = 0.126) and 1.1º (SD = 0.834) respectively. Multivariate analysis of variance showed significant differences in horizontal and angular-coronal total deviation in the 32 implants (P = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis with one-factor interaction showed no statistical difference in implant position or implant type (P = 0.139) between eight maxilla models and eight jaw models.

CONCLUSION

Horizontal and angular-coronal deviations of implants placed with chairside digital workflow were within the recommended safety margin for fully guided surgery.

Computer-assisted surgery in medical and dental applications

INTRODUCTION

Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is a broad surgical methodology that utilizes computer technology to both plan and execute surgical intervention. CAS is widespread in both medicine and dentistry as it allows for minimally invasive and precise surgical procedures. Key innovations in volumetric imaging, virtual surgical planning software, instrument tracking, and robotics have assisted in facilitating the transfer of surgical plans to precise execution of surgical procedures. CAS has long been used in certain medical specialties including neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, and interventional radiology, and has since expanded to oral and maxillofacial application, particularly for computer-assisted implant surgery.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an updated overview of the most current research for CAS in medicine and dentistry, with a focus on neurosurgery and dental implant surgery. The MEDLINE electronic database was searched and relevant original and review articles from 2005 to 2020 were included.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent literature suggests that CAS performs favorably in both neurosurgical and dental implant applications. Computer-guided surgical navigation is well entrenched as standard of care in neurosurgery. Whereas static computer-assisted implant surgery has become established in dentistry, dynamic computer-assisted navigation is newly poised to trend upward in dental implant surgery.

Accuracy of half-way mucosa-supported implant guides for edentulous jaws: a retrospective study with a median follow-up of 2 years

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of half-way digital mucosa-supported implant guides (HDMIGs) for edentulous jaws.

METHODS

Ninety-five consecutive patients (859 implants) with edentulous jaws who underwent implant placement using an HDMIG from July 2012 to June 2018 were retrospectively identified. The primary endpoint was implant-related complications (nerve injury and unexpected perforation), and the secondary endpoints were the faciolingual distance, mesiodistal distance, buccolingual angle, and mesiodistal angle. Follow-ups occurred at 1 month, 2 months, and then every 2 months following implant placement.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (28.4%) patients met the exclusion criteria, leaving 68 eligible patients (636 implants) for the final analysis. The median follow-up was 24 months (range, 18-27 months). No patients developed nerve injury, revision, or unexpected perforation. At the final follow-up, the mean faciolingual distance was 0.65 ± 0.16 mm, the mean mesiodistal distance was 1.16 ± 0.61 mm, the mean buccolingual angle was 4.04° ± 2.26°, and the mean mesiodistal angle was 3.75° ± 2.56°. In the comparison of the first month after surgery and the last follow-up, no significant differences were detected in any of the four measured variables.

CONCLUSION

Use of an HDMIG may be a convenient and safe method to ensure correct implantation.

The Influence of Surgical Experience and Bone Density on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in Edentulous Jaws Using a Mucosa-Supported Surgical Template with a Half-Guided Implant Placement Protocol-A Randomized Clinical Study

The aim of our randomized clinical study was to analyze the influence of surgical experience and bone density on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) in edentulous jaws using a mucosa-supported surgical template with a half-guided implant placement protocol. Altogether, 40 dental implants were placed in the edentulous jaws of 13 patients (novice surgeons: 18 implants, 6 patients (4 male), age 71 ± 10.1 years; experienced surgeons: 22 implants, 7 patients (4 male), age 69.2 ± 4.55 years). Angular deviation, coronal and apical global deviation and grey level measurements were calculated for all implants by a blinded investigator using coDiagnostiX software. 3DSlicer software was applied to calculate the bone volume fraction (BV/TV) for each site of implant placement. There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups in either of the primary outcome variables. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between angular deviation and both grey level measurements (R-value: −0.331, p < 0.05) and BV/TV (R-value: −0.377, p < 0.05). The results of the study suggest that surgical experience did not influence the accuracy of implant placement. The higher the bone density at the sites of implant placement, the higher the accuracy of static CAIS.

Influence of bone condition on implant placement accuracy with computer-guided surgery

BACKGROUND

The impact of the jaw bone condition, such as bone quantity and quality in the implant placement site, affecting the accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery (CGS) remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the influence of bone condition, i.e., bone density, bone width, and cortical bone thickness at the crestal bone on the accuracy of implant placement with CGS.

METHODS

A total of 47 tissue-level implants from 25 patients placed in the posterior mandibular area were studied. Implant placement position was planned on the simulation software, Simplant® Pro 16, by superimposing preoperative computed tomography images with stereolithography data of diagnostic wax-up on the dental cast. Implant placement surgery was performed using the surgical guide plate to reflect the planned implant position. The post-surgical dental cast was scanned to determine the position of the placed implant. Linear and vertical deviations between planned and placed implants were calculated. Deviations at both platform and apical of the implant were measured in the bucco-lingual and mesio-distal directions. Intra- and inter-observer variabilities were calculated to ensure measurement reliability. Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to investigate the effect of the bone condition, such as density, width, and cortical bone thickness at the implant site area, on the accuracy of implant placement (α = 0.05).

RESULT

Intra- and inter-observer variabilities of these measurements showed excellent agreement (intra class correlation coefficient ± 0.90). Bone condition significantly influenced the accuracy of implant placement using CGS (p < 0.05). Both bone density and width were found to be significant predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Low bone density and/or narrow bucco-lingual width near the alveolar bone crest in the implant placement site might be a risk factor influencing the accuracy of implant placement with CGS.

Accuracy of Edentulous Computer-Aided Implant Surgery as Compared to Virtual Planning: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of computer-aided dental implant positions obtained with mucosal-supported templates as compared to Three-Dimensional (3D) planning. Materials and methods: One-hundred implants were inserted into 14 edentulous patients using the All-on-4/6 protocol after surgical virtual planning with RealGUIDE, 3DIEMME, and Geomagic software. After 6 months, three-dimensional neck (V) and apex (S) spatial coordinates of implants and angle inclination displacements as compared to virtual plans were evaluated. Results: The S maxilla coordinates revealed a significant discrepancy between clinical and virtual implant positions (p-value = 0.091). The V coordinates showed no significant differences (p-value = 0.71). The S (p-value = 0.017) and V (p-value = 0.038) mandible coordinates showed significant discrepancies between the clinical and virtual positions of the screws. Implant evaluation showed a 1-mm in average of the horizontal deviation in the V point and a 1.6-mm deviation in the S point. A mean 5° angular global deviation was detected. The multivariate permutation test of the S (p-value = 0.02) confirmed the difference. Greater errors in the mandible were detected as compared to the maxilla, and a higher S discrepancy was found in the posterior jaw compared to the anterior section of both the mandible and maxilla. Conclusions: Computer-aided surgery with mucosal-supported templates is a predictable procedure for implant placement. Data showed a discrepancy between the actual dental implant position as compared to the virtual plan, but this was not statistically significant. However, the horizontal and angle deviations detected indicated that flap surgery should be used to prevent implant positioning errors due to poor sensitivity and accuracy in cases of severe jaw atrophy.