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

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 May 11

PMID 38734597

Authors

Qin Wu

Yuxin Lou

Jikui Sun

Chenyang Xie

Jiacheng Wu

Haiyang Yu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

References

Marei H, Abdel-Hady A, Al-Khalifa K, Al-Mahalawy H . Influence of surgeon experience on the accuracy of implant placement via a partially computer-guided surgical protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34(5):1177–1183. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7480. View

Varga Jr E, Antal M, Major L, Kiscsatari R, Braunitzer G, Piffko J . Guidance means accuracy: A randomized clinical trial on freehand versus guided dental implantation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31(5):417-430. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13578. View

Guentsch A, Sukhtankar L, An H, Luepke P . Precision and trueness of implant placement with and without static surgical guides: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 126(3):398-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.015. View

Sharma A, Agarwal S, Parkash H, Mehra P, Nagpal A . An comparative evaluation between virtually planned implant positions on interactive implant software versus actual implant positions achieved using sterolithographic open guide system. Indian J Dent Res. 2019; 30(2):254-260. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_938_18. View

Kim J, Park Y, Shim J, Moon H . The Impact of Metal Artifacts Within Cone Beam Computed Tomography Data on the Accuracy of Computer-Based Implant Surgery: An In Vitro Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34(3):585–594. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7108. View

Hammerle C, Cordaro L, Van Assche N, Benic G, Bornstein M, Gamper F . Digital technologies to support planning, treatment, and fabrication processes and outcome assessments in implant dentistry. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO consensus conference 2015. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26 Suppl 11:97-101. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12648. View

Bencharit S, Staffen A, Yeung M, Whitley 3rd D, Laskin D, Deeb G . In Vivo Tooth-Supported Implant Surgical Guides Fabricated With Desktop Stereolithographic Printers: Fully Guided Surgery Is More Accurate Than Partially Guided Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76(7):1431-1439. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.02.010. View

El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner S, Faerber K, Buser R, Buser D . Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30(11):1067-1075. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13520. View

Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero M, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M . Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2007; 34(9):816-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01110.x. View

10.

Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flugge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D . Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29 Suppl 16:436-442. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13309. View

11.

Ravida A, Barootchi S, Tattan M, Saleh M, Gargallo-Albiol J, Wang H . Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of computer-guided versus conventional implant-retained hybrid prostheses: A long-term retrospective analysis of treatment protocols. J Periodontol. 2018; 89(9):1015-1024. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0015. View

12.

Pessoa R, Siqueira R, Li J, Saleh I, Meneghetti P, Bezerra F . The Impact of Surgical Guide Fixation and Implant Location on Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery. J Prosthodont. 2021; 31(2):155-164. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13371. View

13.

Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C . The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29 Suppl 16:416-435. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13346. View

14.

Al-Omiri M, Al-Masri M, Alhijawi M, Lynch E . Combined Implant and Tooth Support: An Up-to-Date Comprehensive Overview. Int J Dent. 2017; 2017:6024565. PMC: 5382302. DOI: 10.1155/2017/6024565. View

15.

Romandini M, Ruales-Carrera E, Sadilina S, Hammerle C, Sanz M . Minimal invasiveness at dental implant placement: A systematic review with meta-analyses on flapless fully guided surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2022; 91(1):89-112. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12440. View

16.

Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N . Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 23(4):416-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02337.x. View

17.

Gallardo Y, da Silva-Olivio I, Mukai E, Morimoto S, Sesma N, Cordaro L . Accuracy comparison of guided surgery for dental implants according to the tissue of support: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 28(5):602-612. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12841. View

18.

Pozzi A, Polizzi G, Moy P . Guided surgery with tooth-supported templates for single missing teeth: A critical review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016; 9 Suppl 1:S135-53. View

19.

Tattan M, Chambrone L, Gonzalez-Martin O, Avila-Ortiz G . Static computer-aided, partially guided, and free-handed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31(10):889-916. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13635. View

20.

Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W . Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl:25-42. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2. View