Influence of the tooth position, guided sleeve height, supporting length, manufacturing methods, and resin E-modulus on the in vitro accuracy of surgical implant guides in a free-end situation

Accuracy of immediately placed implants using surgical guides from different 3-dimensional printers: An in vitro study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D)-printed surgical guides for fully guided immediate implants from different manufacturers.

METHODS

Eighteen 3D printed fully guided surgical guides (split into 3 groups [n = 6] according to their manufacturer: Company, Desktop, or Lab), were used to place 72 implants (n = 24) in identical maxillary models. After placement, the mean global, angular, mesiodistal, buccopalatal, and vertical deviation at the platform and apex of the placed implants, relative to their preoperatively planned positions, was calculated.

RESULTS

Significant differences in global apex deviation, angular deviation, mesiodistal apex deviation, and vertical platform and apex deviation were found between the Lab and Desktop groups (p ≤ 0.007). Significant differences in mesiodistal platform and apex deviation and buccopalatal apex deviation were also found between the Company and Desktop groups (p ≤ 0.005). Finally, significant differences in buccopalatal apex deviation, and vertical platform and apex deviation were found between the Company and Lab groups (p ≤ 0.003). Mean differences between guide groups across all parameters never exceeded 0.5 mm or 1°.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of 3D printer has a significant effect on the accuracy of fully guided immediate implants. However, the clinical relevance of these differences may be considered limited.

Accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery for immediate implant placement: A retrospective case series study

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) for immediate implant placement.

METHODS

Twenty cases with 20 implant sites were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria. The preparation of the implant bed and implant placement followed the standardized dental implant robotic surgery protocol. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were conducted to assess possible discrepancies between actual and planned implant positions.

RESULTS

The r-CAIS technology for immediate implant placement exhibited a mean global coronal deviation of 0.71 ± 0.27 mm (95% CI: 0.58-0.83 mm), a mean global apical deviation of 0.69 ± 0.26 mm (95% CI: 0.56-0.81 mm), and an angular deviation of 1.27 ± 0.47° (95% CI: 1.05-1.49°). A substantial number of deviations were observed buccally at both coronal (90%) and apical (95%) levels, with a consistent tendency for buccal deviation.

CONCLUSIONS

The r-CAIS technology proved a promising approach for immediate implantation in the anterior region, with satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, an optimized surgical protocol for r-CAIS technology is required for particular implant sites like extraction sockets or bone defects.

Randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of a custom-made, fully guided implant system for flapless crestal sinus floor elevation: Accuracy and patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare fully guided flapless implant surgery using a light-cured surgical guide (FG group) with partially guided open flap surgery (PG group) in the posterior maxilla when performing simultaneous sinus floor elevation in terms of the accuracy, time requirements, and patient/clinician-reported outcomes (PROMs and CROMs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 56 tissue-level implants were placed with crestal sinus floor elevation in 56 patients at single-tooth sites, with 28 implants allocated to the PG group and 28 to the FG group. The deviations of the placed implants from the virtually planned positions were measured at the implant platform and apex and for the angular deviation. The presurgical preparation time and the duration of surgery were measured. PROMs and CROMs were made by administering questionnaires at multiple time points.

RESULTS

Horizontal deviations at the platform and apex and the angular deviation were significantly smaller in the FG group than the PG group (p < .05). Presurgical preparation and surgery times were significantly shorter in the FG group (p < .001). Patient satisfaction and willingness to receive repeat treatment were significantly better in the FG group than in the PG group (p < .005 and .025, respectively). Clinicians were more satisfied in the FG group than the PG group (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

When placing an implant with sinus floor elevation, the flapless approach using a fully guided surgical system can be more accurate, faster, and increase the satisfaction of both the clinician and patient compared to the partially guided surgery.

Computer-assisted and robotic implant surgery: Assessing the outcome measures of accuracy and educational implications

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to (1) critically evaluate the outcomes measures used to assess the accuracy of implant placement with Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) and (2) review the evidence supporting the efficient implementation of CAIS in training and education of clinicians.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted aiming to identify (a) clinical trials assessing accuracy of implant placement with CAIS, and (b) clinical trials or simulation/cadaver studies where CAIS was utilised and assessed for the training/education of clinicians. Studies since 1995 were assessed for suitability and data related to the outcomes measures of accuracy and educational efficacy were extracted and synthesised.

RESULTS

Accuracy of CAIS has been mainly assessed through surrogate measures. Individual clinical trials have not shown any difference between static and dynamic CAIS, but recent meta-analyses suggest an advantage of dynamic CAIS in reducing angular deviation. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS might offer higher accuracy than each of the two used alone. Dynamic CAIS is suitable for novice surgeons and might even have added value as an education tool for implant surgery, although mastering the technique requires longer training than static.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses of large samples, new and diverse outcomes measures, as well as benchmarking of levels of accuracy with specific clinical outcomes will help to better understand the potential and limitations of CAIS. Dynamic CAIS is suitable for novice operators, but educational interventions distributed over longer periods of time will be required for mastery of the process.

Does curve of Spee affect the precision of 3D-printed curvature-adaptive splints?

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to propose a standardized protocol for the fabrication of three-dimensionally (3D)-printed curvature-adaptive splints (CASs) and assess the precision of CASs on dentitions with different depths of the curve of Spee (COS).

METHODS

76 lower dental resin models, each exhibiting one of the four types of COS (0-, 2-, 4-, and 6-mm deep), were selected and digitally scanned. CASs were designed, 3D printed, and grouped into C0, C2, C4, and C6, corresponding to the four types of COS depths. To assess precision, the CASs occluded with the resin model were scanned as a whole and compared with the originally designed ones.

RESULTS

In terms of translational deviations observed in the CASs, the mean value of absolute sagittal deviation (0.136 mm) was significantly higher than those of vertical (0.091 mm) and transversal deviations (0.045 mm) (P < 0.01). Regarding rotational deviations of the CASs, the mean deviation in pitch (0.323°) was significantly higher than those in yaw (0.083°) and roll (0.110°) (P < 0.01). However, when comparing the accuracy of CASs across C0, C2, C4, and C6 groups, no statistically significant difference was found. Additionally, the translational deviations, rotational deviations, and RMSE of all groups were significantly lower than the clinically acceptable limits of 0.5 mm, 1°, and 0.25 mm, respectively (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The depth of the COS has no significant impact on the precision of CASs, as evidenced by the absence of statistically significant differences in translational, rotational deviations, and RMSE among all groups (C0, C2, C4, and C6). Moreover, despite relatively high deviations in the sagittal dimension and pitch, all dimensional deviations and RMSE remained statistically significantly lower than the corresponding clinically acceptable limits (CALs) in all groups.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This standardized protocol incorporating "curvature-adaptation" represents an optimized approach to fabricating diverse 3D-printed splints tailored to dentitions with different anatomical features in contemporary digital dentistry.

Accuracy of the novel digital non-cross-arch surgical guides with integration of tooth undercut retention and screw-bone support for implant placement in mandibular free-end

BACKGROUND

Large cross-arch free-end surgical guides can obscure the visual field, compromising surgical accuracy due to insufficient stability at the free-end. This in vitro study aims to evaluate the accuracy of novel digital non-cross-arch surgical guides designed for implant placement at the mandibular free-end, incorporating tooth undercut retention and screw-bone support.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mandibular dental model lacking left molars was utilized to fabricate unilateral (cross-arch) tooth-supported surgical guides (GT I, n = 20). Subsequently, two additional types of surgical guides were fabricated: GT II (covering two teeth, n = 20) and GT III (covering three teeth, n = 20). These novel surgical guides were designed to utilize the undercut of the supporting teeth for retention and enhance stability with screw-bone support at the guide's free-end. Furthermore, 60 identical guiding blocks were assembled on the three types of surgical guides to facilitate the implants' insertion. On a phantom head, 120 implant replicas were placed at the Federal Dentaire Internationale (FDI) teeth positions #36 and #37 on the dental model, employing a combination of surgical guides and guiding blocks. To assess accuracy, planned and placed implant positions were compared using intraoral optical scanning. Discrepancies in angulation and linear deviations, including the coronal/apical 3D deviations, lateral deviation as well as depth deviation, were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

GT I exhibited significantly largest discrepancies, including angular and linear deviations at the crest and apex at every implant site. Especially in depth, at implant site #36, the mean deviation value of GT I (0.27 ± 0.13 mm) was twice as large as GT III (0.13 ± 0.07 mm), and almost twice as large as GT II (0.14 ± 0.08 mm). However, at implant site #37, this deviation increased to almost a five-fold relationship between GT I (0.63 ± 0.12 mm) and II (0.14 ± 0.09 mm), as well as between GT I and III (0.13 ± 0.09 mm). No significant discrepancies existed between the novel surgical guides at either implant site #36 or #37.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a practical protocol for enhancing accuracy of implant placement and reducing the size of free-end surgical guides used at mandibular molar sites.

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.

The influence of guide stabilizers and their application sequences on trueness and precision of surgical guides in free end situations: An in vitro analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of guide stabilizers and their application sequences on implant placement accuracy of guided implant surgery in multiple teeth loss at free end.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 96 implants were placed in the regions of #34, #36, and #37 of 32 identical mandibular models. The influence of using guide stabilizers or not (group A and group B) and various guide stabilizers application sequences (group B: #34 → #36 → #37; group C: #36 → #34 → #37; group D: #37 → #34 → #36) on implant placement trueness and precision was investigated. Data were analyzed using T-tests and one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

Group B showed significant benefits in enhancing implant placement precision. Compared to group A, it resulted in reducing 3D-deviation at crest and 2D deviation in vestibular-oral direction at both crest and apex. Furthermore, group D demonstrated greater improvement in global implant placement precision by reducing 2D deviation in mesial-distal direction at both crest and apex. Among the three different stabilizer application sequences, group D exhibited the highest level of implant placement precision.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases of missing teeth at distal free end, the use of guide stabilizers and their application sequences does not have a significant impact on implant placement trueness. However, they do improve implant placement precision compared to methods that do not utilize guide stabilizers. Specifically, applying a guide stabilizer first at the furthest implant site to change teeth loss classification from free end to edentulous space with posterior support is the most reliable sequence.

Effect of pilot-guided implant placement concept on the accuracy of osteotomy preparation and implant placement

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of osteotomy preparation and implant placement for 3 pilot-guided (PG) concepts, namely, a surgical template with a metal sleeve (MS), a surgical template with an in-built nonmetal sleeve (NMS), and a surgical template with an in-built nonmetal sleeve for round bur indentation (RB).

METHODS

Surgical models with missing maxillary molars were studied. The MS templates were designed to accept metal sleeves, while the NMS and RB templates were designed with in-built nonmetal sleeves. Ten templates were tested per group (n = 10). After each step (pilot drilling, 2nd drilling, 3rd drilling, profiling, and implant placement), the surgical model was scanned and compared against the planning model to determine maximum horizontal deviation (MHD) and maximum angle deviation (MAD).

RESULTS

The MS and NMS templates exhibited a similar increase in MHD with successive drilling steps. The MAD for the pilot drilling step was significantly lower for MS than for the other groups. However, the differences among groups for MHD and MAD diminished in later steps. All templates had an MHD of 1.0 mm or less and an MAD less than 8°.

CONCLUSION

The investigated PG implant placement concepts resulted in similar deviations in the placed implants.

Accuracy of autonomous robotic surgery for dental implant placement in fully edentulous patients: A retrospective case series study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the accuracy of dental implant placement using the robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) technology in fully edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fully edentulous and terminal dentition patients were enrolled for r-CAIS technology. Based on the cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination, a customized positioning marker and a preoperative surgical plan were created before surgery. During the implant surgery, the implant osteotomy and placement were automatically performed using an autonomous robotic surgery system under the surgeon's supervision. A postoperative CBCT scan was used to determine the discrepancies between the planned and placed implants.

RESULTS

Ten patients with 59 implants underwent autonomous robotic surgery. No adverse surgical events occurred. The deviations of global coronal, global apical, and angular were 0.67 ± 0.37 mm (95% CI: 0.58-0.77 mm), 0.69 ± 0.37 mm (95% CI: 0.59-0.78 mm), and 1.27° ± 0.59° (95% CI: 1.42°-1.11°), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The autonomous r-CAIS technology proved an accurate surgical approach for implant placement in fully edentulous patients due to the control of the angular deviation. Autonomous robotic surgery seems promising as an accurate technology for treating fully edentulous patients. However, further trials are required to provide more hard clinical evidence.

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.

Assessment of guide fitting using an intra-oral scanner: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of an intra-oral scanner (IOS) to assess the position of an endodontic guide in vitro.

METHODS

Fourteen extracted human teeth were placed into a maxillary model and scanned using computed tomography and a reference laboratory scanner. An ideal endodontic guide was then created and modified by adding defects of different thicknesses to simulate incorrect positions: 50 μm, 150 μm, 400 μm, and 1000 μm. For each thickness, guides were printed three times and each guide was scanned by three experimented operators using a Trios 4 IOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The 36 scans were compared using a best-fit alignment to the master model without defect to define the accuracy of the method and the positioning error.

RESULTS

The IOS presented a mean trueness of 1.28 μm (SD= 12.70) and a mean precision of 11.52 μm (SD= 62.17). Considering all sizes of defect, the mean measured position of the endodontic guide was highly correlated (R>0.99) with the expected position. Compared to the ideal guide, there was a mean linear deviation of 46.11 μm (SD= 23.21) and a mean angular deviation of 5.9° (SD= 1.2); this deviation was not influenced by the operator.

CONCLUSION

The present study found that an IOS had good performance to detect a positioning error of the endodontic guide in vitro.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This new application of IOS has a promising potential in clinical practice to assist practitioners during the fitting of guides.

Accuracy of autonomous robotic surgery for single-tooth implant placement: A case series

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of the autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) for single-tooth implant placement.

METHODS

Patients with a single missing tooth were enrolled for the autonomous robotic implant surgery. The patients underwent a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan with a positioning marker. Virtual preoperative implant placement and a drilling plan were created before surgery. The robotic system automatically performed the implant osteotomy and placement intraoperatively under the surgeon's supervision. A postoperative CBCT scan was performed to evaluate the deviations between the planned and placed implants.

RESULTS

Ten patients with single dental implant placement were enrolled. No adverse surgical events and postoperative complications (i.e., infection and early implant failure) were reported. The autonomous robotic implant surgery exhibited a mean overall coronal deviation of 0.74 mm (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.94 mm), a mean overall apical deviation of 0.73 mm (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.93 mm), and an angular deviation of 1.11° (95% CI: 0.78 to 1.44°), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The high accuracy of autonomous r-CAIS technology in single-tooth implant placement was attributed to the control of the angular deviation and axial errors.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The main findings of this study provide significant evidence to support the autonomous robotic implant surgery system as a potential alternative in dental implant surgery.

Fixation Pins Increase the Accuracy of Implant Surgery in Free-End Models: An In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

Implant surgical guides, in combination with implant planning software, have been designed for accurate surgery, especially in partial edentulism. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of fixation pins of surgical guides on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgeries in a maxillary free-end situation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This in vitro study was conducted to compare surgical guides using various fixation pin protocols in implant surgery. A patient dental model with missing teeth from maxillary right first premolar to third molar was used as the study model… Implant placement was planned at maxillary right first premolar, right first molar, and right second molar; Straumann full guide templates were designed and fabricated using the coDiagnostiX software. The experiment involved surgical guides with no fixation pins (NF), buccal unilateral fixation pin (BF), palatal unilateral fixation pin (PF), and bilateral fixation pins on the buccal and palatal sides (BPF), based on the position and number of fixation pins. The deviation between the actual and planned positions was used to evaluate implant accuracy. The fixation pin protocols were the primary predictive variables. Angular, 3D platform, and 3D apex deviations were the primary outcome variables. Statistical analysis was performed using the one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

NF generated the maximum angular deviation (3.65 ± 1.39°), 3D platform deviation (1.58 ± 0.55 mm), and 3D apex deviation (2.18 ± 0.79 mm), whereas BPF produced the minimum angular deviation (1.88 ± 0.86°), 3D platform deviation (1.09 ± 0.51 mm), and 3D apex deviation (1.53 ± 0.45 mm). A statistically significant difference between NF and BPF in the angular deviation, 3D platform, and apex deviation (P < .0001, P = .009, and P = .002, respectively) was identified. The unilateral fixation pin exerted a significant effect only on the angular accuracy (BF, P = .0018; PF, P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

In a maxillary free-end situation, templates with a fixation pin generate better implant accuracy than those without it. A bilateral fixation pin protocol may produce less deviation than those without fixation pins. The implant accuracy does not appear to be affected by the position of the unilateral fixation pin.

Retentive design of a small surgical guide for implant surgery: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

Instability of the surgical guide is an overlooked factor that can result in a difference between the planned and the actual positions of an implant. Our aim was to compare the stability of the retentive surgical guide (RSG) with a conventional surgical guide (CSG) in an in-vitro experiment.

METHODS

A platform to evaluate the stability of the surgical guide was designed using 3D-modelling software (Meshmixer 3.5, Autodesk). Imaging data from 15 patients with a single missing tooth were used to plan the virtual implant. Two surgical guides were designed (Blue Sky Plan 4.8, Blue Sky Bio) and 3D printed (Form2, Dental SG resin, Formlabs) for each case: the CSG with the default, predetermined software settings, and the RSG, designed on a dental model with a 0.1-mm undercut and altered production parameters (reduced guide-to-teeth offset of 0.07 mm, reduced guide thickness of 2.3 mm and a retentive clasp in a marginal area). The dental models were reproducibly secured on the testing platform using a digital force gauge, and the surgical guides were positioned. An increasing force of 0.1 N, 1 N, 2.5 N, and 5 N was sequentially applied from the buccal and the oral directions to the surgical guide via a drill handle. For each force, either the magnitude of the guide's displacement was captured with an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam AC, Dentsply Sirona; software version: SW 4.5.2) or the dislodgement of the guide was recorded. Scans were imported for analysis (GOM Inspect 2018, GOM GmbH), and library files of the surgical guides and implants were superimposed as a joined complex. The deviation of the implant's position was calculated from the displacement of the guide's position RESULTS: Three-way repeated measures using ANOVA revealed a more significant guide displacement and virtually projected implant deviation in the CSG group than the RSG group and with increasing force in all the deviation parameters. Both groups showed greater resistance to the displacement with the force applied from the oral direction than the buccal direction. The application of the force in the buccal direction resulted in guide dislodgements of 13% and 0% for the CSG and RSG, respectively. In the oral direction, the dislodgement rates were 33% and 7% for the CSG and RSG, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the retentive design increased the stability of the surgical guide and, consequently, the accuracy of the virtually projected implants in comparison to the conventional surgical guide designed using the default settings. Clinical trials are needed to confirm its advantages in clinical use.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

With a simple modification to the design, the surgical guide retention provided greater stability, with smaller deviations under loading; this resulted in improved implant precision parameters without requiring additional materials or software. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical feasibility of this surgical guide with improved retention and function.

Precision and trueness of computer-assisted implant placement using static surgical guides with open and closed sleeves: An in-vitro analysis

Objectives

The aim of this in vitro study was to determine accuracy defined by trueness and precision of computer‐assisted implant surgery comparing two guided surgery kits designed for either closed sleeves or open sleeves with a lateral window.

Material and methods

Each n=20 implants were placed fully guided (sleeve‐bone distance of 2 or 4 mm) in identical replicas using a surgical guide with both closed sleeve or an open sleeve, partially guided, or free hand. The achieved implant position was digitized and compared with the planned position. Trueness and precision were determined. The angular deviation was defined as the primary outcome parameter. The means, standard deviation, and 95%‐confidence intervals were analyzed statistically with 1‐way ANOVA and the Scheffé procedure.

Results

The accuracy of guided implant placement using closed and open sleeves was comparable when the sleeve‐bone distance was 2 mm. Accuracy decreased when the sleeve‐bone distance increased in both fully guided groups, more so in the open than in the closed sleeve group. The least accurate method was the free‐hand group. Partially guided implant surgery was more accurate than free‐hand placement, but less accurate than the fully guided groups with 2‐mm sleeve‐bone distance.

Conclusions

The closer the sleeve to the bone, the more accurate and precise is computer‐assisted implant surgery using a closed system and a system using open sleeves. Partially guided implant surgery using only the static guide for the pilot drill is less accurate than both fully guided approaches, but more accurate than free‐hand surgery.