Dental implant location via surface scanner: a pilot study

Digital registration versus cone-beam computed tomography for evaluating implant position: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination is considered a reliable method for clinicians to assess the positions of implants. Nevertheless, CBCT has drawbacks involving radiation exposure and high costs. Moreover, the image quality can be affected by artifacts. Recently, some literature has mentioned a digital registration method (DRM) as an alternative to CBCT for evaluating implant positions. The aim of this clinical study was to verify the accuracy of the DRM compared to CBCT scans in postoperative implant positioning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 36 patients who received anterior maxillary implants were included in this clinical study, involving a total of 48 implants. The study included 24 patients in the single implant group and 12 patients in the dual implant group. The postoperative three-dimensional (3D) positions of implants were obtained using both CBCT and DRM. The DRM included three main steps. Firstly, the postoperative 3D data of the dentition and intraoral scan body (ISB) was obtained through the intraoral scan (IOS). Secondly, a virtual model named registration unit which comprised an implant replica and a matching ISB was created with the help of a lab scanner and reverse engineering software. Thirdly, by superimposing the registration unit and IOS data, the postoperative position of the implant was determined. The accuracy of DRM was evaluated by calculating the Root Mean Square (RMS) values after superimposing the implant positions obtained from DRM with those from postoperative CBCT. The accuracy of DRM was compared between the single implant group and the dual implant group using independent sample t-tests. The superimposition deviations of CBCT and IOS were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall mean RMS was 0.29 ± 0.05 mm. The mean RMS was 0.30 ± 0.03 mm in the single implant group and 0.29 ± 0.06 mm in the dual implant group, with no significant difference (p = 0.27). The overall registration accuracy of the IOS and CBCT data ranged from 0.14 ± 0.05 mm to 0.21 ± 0.08 mm.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with the 3D implant positions obtained by CBCT, the implant positions located by the DRM showed clinically acceptable deviation ranges. This method can be used in single and dual implant treatments to assess the implant positions.

Accuracy assessment of implant placement with versus without a CAD/CAM surgical guide by novices versus specialists via the digital registration method: an in vitro randomized crossover study

BACKGROUND

Many studies demonstrated that surgical guides might reduce discrepancies compared with freehand implant placement. This randomized crossover study aimed to assess the effects of approaches, practitioners' experience and learning sequences on the accuracy of single tooth implantation via digital registration method. No similar study was found.

METHODS

This in vitro randomized crossover study enrolled 60 novice students (Group S) and 10 experienced instructors (Group I). Sixty students were randomly and evenly assigned to two groups (Group SA and SB). In Group SA, 30 students first performed single molar implant on a simulation model freehand (Group SAFH), and then with a CAD/CAM surgical guide (Group SASG). In Group SB, another 30 students first performed guided (Group SBSG) and then freehand (Group SBFH). Ten instructors were also divided into Group IAFH/IASG (n = 5) and IBSG/IBFH (n = 5) following the same rules. The accuracy of implant placement was assessed by the coronal and apical distance (mm) and angular (°) deviations using the digital registration method. T tests and nonparametric tests were used to compare the results among different groups of approaches, experience and sequences.

RESULTS

For students, the coronal and apical distance and the angular deviations were significantly lower in surgical guide group than freehand group in total and in learning freehand first subgroup, but for learning surgical guide first subgroup the apical distance deviation showed no significant difference between two approaches. For students, the angular deviation of freehand group was significantly lower in learning surgical guide first group than learning freehand first group. For instructors, the coronal and apical distance and angular deviations showed no significant difference between two approaches and two sequences. For freehand approach, the coronal and apical distance and the angular deviations were significantly higher in student group than instructor group, while not significantly different between two groups for surgical guide approach.

CONCLUSIONS

For novices, using a surgical guide for the first implant placement may reduce the potential deviations compared with freehand surgery, and may reach a comparable accuracy with that of specialists. For simple single molar implantation, the surgical guide may not be significantly helpful for experienced specialists.

Digital versus radiographic accuracy evaluation of guided implant surgery: an in vitro study

Background

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the most widely used method for postsurgical evaluation of the accuracy of guided implant surgery. However, the disadvantages of CBCT include radiation exposure, artifacts caused by metal implants, and high cost. Few studies have introduced a digital registration method to replace CBCT for evaluating the accuracy of guided surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare digital registration to conventional CBCT in terms of the capacity to evaluate the implant positioning accuracy of guided surgery.

Materials and methods

This in vitro study included 40 acrylic resin models with posterior single mandibular tooth loss. Guided surgery software was used to determine the optimal implant position; 40 tooth-supported fully guided drilling templates were designed and milled accordingly. After the guided surgery, the accuracies of the surgical templates were evaluated by conventional CBCT and digital registration. For evaluation by conventional CBCT, postsurgical CBCT scans of the resin models were performed. The CBCT data were reconstructed and superimposed on the implant planning data. For digital registration, we constructed a virtual registration unit that consisted of an implant replica and a scan body. Next, we obtained postsurgical optical scans of resin models with the scan body. The postsurgical implant position was identified by superimposition of the registration unit and optical scan data. The implant planning data and postsurgical implant position data were superimposed; deviations were reported in terms of distance for implant entry/apex point and in terms of angle for the implant axis. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots were used to analyze the agreement between the two evaluation methods.

Results

The ICCs between the two methods were 0.986, 0.993, and 0.968 for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all were significantly greater than 0.75 (p < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots showed that the 95% limits of agreement of the differences were − 0.144 to + 0.081 mm, − 0.135 to + 0.147 mm, and − 0.451° to + 0.729° for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all values were within the maximum tolerated difference.

Conclusion

Conventional CBCT and digital registration showed good agreement in terms of evaluating the accuracy of implant positioning using tooth-supported surgical templates.

Intraoral Scanning as an Alternative to Evaluate the Accuracy of Dental Implant Placements in Partially Edentate Situations: A Prospective Clinical Case Series

(1) Background: For years, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography’s (CBCT) have been the golden standard to evaluate implant placement accuracy. By validating Intraoral Scans (IOS) as an alternative to determine implant placement accuracy, a second CBCT could be avoided. (2) Methods: Using dynamic guided implant surgery, 23 implants were placed in 16 partially edentate patients. Preoperatively, both CBCT and IOS (Trios® 3) were obtained and subsequently imported into DTX Studio™ planning software to determine the ideal implant location. A CBCT scan and an IOS including scan abutments were acquired immediately after placement. Both postoperative CBCT and postoperative IOS were used to compare the achieved implant position with the planned implant position and were projected and analyzed using the Implant Position Orthogonal Projection (IPOP) method. (3) Results: Mean differences between the CBCT and IOS methods on the mesio−distal plane were 0.09 mm (p = 0.419) at the tip, 0.01 mm (p = 0.910) at the shoulder, −0.55° (p = 0.273) in angulation, and 0.2 mm (p = 0.280) in implant depth. Mean differences between both methods on the bucco-lingual/bucco-palatal plane were 0.25 mm (p = 0.000) at the tip, 0.12 mm (p = 0.011) at the shoulder, −0.81° (p = 0.002) in angulation, and 0.17 mm (p = 0.372) in implant depth. A statistical analysis was performed using a paired t-test. All mesiodistal deviations between the two methods showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). Buccolingual/buccopalatal deviations showed no significant difference in implant depth deviation. However, significant differences were found at the tip, shoulder, and angulation (p < 0.05). These values are of minimal clinical significance. (4) Conclusions: This study supports the hypothesis that a postoperative IOS is a valid alternative for determining implant placement accuracy.

In Vitro Comparison between Metal Sleeve-Free and Metal Sleeve-Incorporated 3D-Printed Computer-Assisted Implant Surgical Guides

The present study aims to compare the accuracy of metal sleeve-free 3D-printed computer-assisted implant surgical guides (MSF group) (n = 10) with metal sleeve-incorporated 3D-printed computer-assisted implant surgical guides (MSI group) (n = 10). Implants of diameter 4.0 mm and 5.0 mm were placed in the left second premolars and bilateral first molars, respectively, using a fully guided system. Closed-form sleeves were used in teeth on the left and open-form sleeves on the right. The weight differences of the surgical guides before and after implant placement, and angular deviations before and after implant placement were measured. Weight differences were compared with Student's t-tests and angular deviations with Mann-Whitney tests. Cross-sectional views of the insert parts were observed with a scanning electron microscope. Preoperative and postoperative weight differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.821). In terms of angular deviations, those along the mesiodistal direction for the left second premolars were significantly lower in the MSF group (p = 0.006). However, those along the mesiodistal direction for the bilateral molars and those along the buccolingual direction for all teeth were not significantly different (p > 0.05). 3D-printed implant surgical guides without metal sleeve inserts enable accurate implant placement without exhausting the guide holes, rendering them feasible for fully guided implant placement.