» Articles » PMID: 32495453

Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open-Source Software: An In Vitro Study

Overview
Journal J Prosthodont
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2020 Jun 5
PMID 32495453
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement position using two different dental implant planning software.

Materials And Methods: A set of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files from a cone beam computed tomography of a patient missing maxillary right first premolar was used. Implant planning was done using two open-source programs: A nondental 3D Slicer/Blender (3DSB) software and a commercial dental implant treatment planning program: Blue Sky Plan 4 (BSP4). An intraoral scan of the same patient was used to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file of the maxillary arch and later printed into 20 identical casts. Ten surgical guides were printed for each group as well. A dental implant (3.8 mm × 12 mm, Biohorizons) was placed into each cast using fully guided surgical protocol. The horizontal displacements at the implant cervical platform and at the implant apex as well as the angulation displacements were measured using digital scanning of the implant scan bodies and were analyzed using a 3D compare software. Statistical analyses were conducted (⍺ = 0.05) using t-test and F-test to examine differences in trueness and precision, respectively.

Results: The average horizontal deviations for the platform and the apex, respectively, were 0.33 ± 0.12 mm and 0.76 ± 0.30 mm for 3DSB and 0.44 ± 0.21 mm and 0.98 ± 0.48 mm for BSP4. The average angulation deviations for 3DSB and BSB4 were 2.34 ± 0.93° and 3.07 ± 1.57°, respectively. There were no statistical differences in the means (t-test) of the platform, apex, and angulation deviations (p = 0.16, p = 0.19, and p = 0.18, respectively). There were statistical differences in the variances (F test) of the platform (p = 0.043) and angulation (p = 0.049) deviations but not the apex (p = 0.059) deviations.

Conclusions: The combination of nondental open-source software, 3D Slicer/Blender can be used to plan implant guided surgery with an accuracy similar to commercial dental software with slightly higher precision. Open-source nondental software can be considered as an alternative in dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery.

Citing Articles

Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi-active robotic versus free-hand techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Yang F, Chen J, Cao R, Tang Q, Liu H, Zheng Y Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024; 26(6):1149-1161.

PMID: 39161058 PMC: 11660539. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13375.


Robot-assisted dental implant surgery procedure: A literature review.

Bahrami R, Pourhajibagher M, Nikparto N, Bahador A J Dent Sci. 2024; 19(3):1359-1368.

PMID: 39035318 PMC: 11259664. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.03.011.


Accuracy of digital workflow for placing orthodontic miniscrews using generic and licensed open systems. A 3d imaging analysis of non-native .stl files for guided protocols.

Ronsivalle V, Venezia P, Bennici O, DAnto V, Leonardi R, Giudice A BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1):494.

PMID: 37460998 PMC: 10353103. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03113-9.


Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study.

Chen J, Bai X, Ding Y, Shen L, Sun X, Cao R BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1):179.

PMID: 36978064 PMC: 10052843. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8.


Influence of Metal Guide Sleeves on the Accuracy and Precision of Dental Implant Placement Using Guided Implant Surgery: An In Vitro Study.

Adams C, Ammoun R, Deeb G, Bencharit S J Prosthodont. 2022; 32(1):62-70.

PMID: 35257456 PMC: 10078659. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13503.