Comparison of the accuracy of implant position among freehand implant placement, static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: a non- randomized prospective study

被引:39
|
作者
Jaemsuwan, S. [1 ]
Arunjaroensuk, S. [1 ]
Kaboosaya, B. [1 ]
Subbalekha, K. [1 ]
Mattheos, N. [2 ]
Pimkhaokham, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Chulalongkorn Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, 34 Henri Dunant Rd, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
[2] Karolinska Inst, Dept Dent Med, Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
Dental implant; Computer-assisted surgery; Surgical navigation; Edentulous jaw; Dimensional measurement accuracy; SURGICAL GUIDES; TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS; MENTAL NAVIGATION; MAXILLA; DENTISTRY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijom.2022.05.009
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
The optimal implant position is a critical factor for long-term success in fully edentulous patients. Implants can be placed through conventional freehand, static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), or dynamic CAIS protocols, but at present there is very limited clinical evidence on their accuracy in fully edentulous patients. This study was performed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using three protocols in fully edentulous patients. Thirteen patients received 60 implants with the freehand (n = 20), static CAIS (n = 20), or dynamic CAIS (n = 20) protocol. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography was utilized to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement in relation to the planned optimal position. The data were analysed by ANCOVA followed by Bonferroni analysis. The mean angular deviation (standard deviation) in the freehand, static CAIS, and dynamic CAIS groups was 10.09 degrees (4.64 degrees), 4.98 degrees (2.16 degrees), and 5.75 degrees (2.09 degrees), respectively. The mean three-dimensional deviation (standard deviation) at the implant platform in the freehand, static CAIS, and dynamic CAIS groups was 3.48 (2.00) mm, 1.40 (0.72) mm, and 1.73 (0.43) mm, while at the implant apex it was 3.60 (2.11) mm, 1.66 (0.61) mm, and 1.86 (0.82) mm, respectively. No difference in terms of accuracy was found between static and dynamic CAIS; both demonstrated significantly higher accuracy when compared to the freehand protocol in fully edentulous patients.
引用
收藏
页码:264 / 271
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
    Abduo, Jaafar
    Lau, Douglas
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2020, 6 (01)
  • [22] Accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery for immediate implant placement: A retrospective case series study
    Li, Ping
    Zhao, Chunhui
    Chen, Jiahao
    Xu, Shulan
    Yang, Shuo
    Li, An
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2024, 26 (06) : 1279 - 1288
  • [23] Accuracy of the Yakebot dental implant robotic system versus fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery template in edentulous jaw implantation: A preliminary clinical study
    Wang, Wenxue
    Xu, Hao
    Mei, Dongmei
    Zhou, Chen
    Li, Xiaojing
    Han, Ze'yu
    Zhou, Xiaobin
    Li, Xin
    Zhao, Baodong
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2024, 26 (02) : 309 - 316
  • [24] Accuracy of freehand surgery, static and dynamic computer assisted surgery on zygomatic implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analyses
    Traboulsi-Garet, Bassel
    Jorba-Garcia, Adria
    Bara-Casaus, Javier
    Camps-Font, Octavi
    Valmaseda-Castellon, Eduard
    Figueiredo, Rui
    Sanchez-Garces, Angels
    JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2025, 53 (04) : 301 - 311
  • [25] A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional and Computer-Assisted Implant Planning and Placement in Partially Edentulous Patients. Part 4: Accuracy of Implant Placement
    Schneider, David
    Sancho-Puchades, Manuel
    Mir-Mari, Javier
    Muehlemann, Sven
    Jung, Ronald
    Haemmerle, Christoph
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2019, 39 (04) : E111 - E122
  • [26] Accuracy of implant placement using a mixed reality-based dynamic navigation system versus static computer-assisted and freehand surgery: An in Vitro study
    Shusterman, Ariel
    Nashef, Rizan
    Tecco, Simona
    Mangano, Carlo
    Lerner, Henriette
    Mangano, Francesco Guido
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 146
  • [27] The accuracy of dynamic computer assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous jaws: A retrospective case series
    Wang, Jiayi
    Ge, Yanjun
    Muhlemann, Sven
    Pan, Shaoxia
    Jung, Ronald E.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2023, 34 (11) : 1278 - 1288
  • [28] Comparison of the accuracy of implant position for two-implants supported fixed dental prosthesis using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled clinical trial
    Yimarj, Paweena
    Subbalekha, Keskanya
    Dhanesuan, Kanit
    Siriwatana, Kiti
    Mattheos, Nikos
    Pimkhaokham, Atiphan
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2020, 22 (06) : 672 - 678
  • [29] Accuracy of keyless vs drill-key implant systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery using two guide-hole designs compared to freehand implant placement: an in vitro study
    Raabe, Clemens
    Schuetz, Tabea S.
    Chappuis, Vivianne
    Yilmaz, Burak
    Abou-Ayash, Samir
    Couso-Queiruga, Emilio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2023, 9 (01) : 4
  • [30] Accuracy of keyless vs drill-key implant systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery using two guide-hole designs compared to freehand implant placement: an in vitro study
    Clemens Raabe
    Tabea S. Schuetz
    Vivianne Chappuis
    Burak Yilmaz
    Samir Abou-Ayash
    Emilio Couso-Queiruga
    International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 9