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
  • [1] The accuracy of implant placement using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous arches: A prospective controlled clinical study
    Lorwicheanrung, Jarungvit
    Mahardawi, Basel
    Arunjaroensuk, Sirida
    Kaboosaya, Boosana
    Mattheos, Nikos
    Pimkhaokham, Atiphan
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (08) : 841 - 853
  • [2] Accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: An in vitro study
    Ruiz-Romero, Victor
    Jorba-Garcia, Adria
    Camps-Font, Octavi
    Figueiredo, Rui
    Valmaseda-Castellon, Eduard
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 149
  • [3] Accuracy of dental implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: An in vitro study
    Otaghsara, Seyedeh Sahar Taheri
    Joda, Tim
    Thieringer, Florian Markus
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 132
  • [4] Comparison of the accuracy of immediate implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant system in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: a prospective study
    Feng, Yuzhang
    Su, Zhenya
    Mo, Anchun
    Yang, Xingmei
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2022, 8 (01)
  • [5] Comparison of the accuracy of immediate implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant system in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: a prospective study
    Yuzhang Feng
    Zhenya Su
    Anchun Mo
    Xingmei Yang
    International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 8
  • [6] Accuracy of implant placement with a combined use of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial
    Yotpibulwong, Thanida
    Arunjaroensuk, Sirida
    Kaboosaya, Boosana
    Sinpitaksakul, Phonkit
    Arksornnukit, Mansuang
    Mattheos, Nikos
    Pimkhaokham, Atiphan
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2023, 34 (04) : 330 - 341
  • [7] Accuracy of freehand versus dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant placement: An in-vitro study
    Traboulsi-Garet, Bassel
    Jorba-Garcia, Adria
    Bara-Casaus, Javier
    Camps-Font, Octavi
    Valmaseda-Castellon, Eduard
    Figueiredo, Rui
    Sanchez-Garces, M. Angeles
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2025, 155
  • [8] Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in long span edentulous area by novice implant clinicians: A cross-sectional in vitro study comparing fully-guided, pilot-guided, and freehand implant placement protocols
    Abduo, Jaafar
    Lau, Douglas
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2021, 23 (03) : 361 - 372
  • [9] Does implant drill design influence the accuracy of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery? An in vitro study
    Anna Takács
    Gyula Marada
    Kinga Turzó
    Ákos Nagy
    Orsolya Németh
    Eitan Mijiritsky
    Márton Kivovics
    Attila Mühl
    BMC Oral Health, 23
  • [10] Does implant drill design influence the accuracy of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery? An in vitro study
    Takacs, Anna
    Marada, Gyula
    Turzo, Kinga
    Nagy, Akos
    Nemeth, Orsolya
    Mijiritsky, Eitan
    Kivovics, Marton
    Muhl, Attila
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2023, 23 (01)