Comparison of implant placement accuracy in two different preoperative digital workflows: navigated vs. pilot-drill-guided surgery.
Accuracy
Digital workflow
Implant system
Navigation
Journal
International journal of implant dentistry
ISSN: 2198-4034
Titre abrégé: Int J Implant Dent
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101676532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 04 2021
30 04 2021
Historique:
received:
11
01
2021
accepted:
17
03
2021
entrez:
30
4
2021
pubmed:
1
5
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows. A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model. The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex. The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows.
METHODS
A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model.
RESULTS
The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex.
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33928447
doi: 10.1186/s40729-021-00322-1
pii: 10.1186/s40729-021-00322-1
pmc: PMC8085150
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45Références
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Sep 19;32(1):92-99
pubmed: 27643585
Int J Implant Dent. 2020 Mar 11;6(1):10
pubmed: 32157478
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Oct 15;:
pubmed: 33070970
Int J Implant Dent. 2020 Nov 24;6(1):78
pubmed: 33230662
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Sep/Oct;35(5):931-938
pubmed: 32991643
J Oral Implantol. 2016 Oct;42(5):399-405
pubmed: 27267658
J Clin Med. 2020 Feb 04;9(2):
pubmed: 32033089
J Oral Rehabil. 2008 Jun;35(6):454-74
pubmed: 18429973
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001 Oct;29(5):276-81
pubmed: 11673922
Postgrad Med. 2015 Mar;127(2):202-14
pubmed: 25529043
Int J Implant Dent. 2018 Nov 9;4(1):34
pubmed: 30411253
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:92-109
pubmed: 19885437
Int J Prosthodont. 2017 Jul/Aug;30(4):367-169
pubmed: 28697207
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Mar-Apr;21(2):305-13
pubmed: 16634503
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019 Nov;31(4):539-547
pubmed: 31563194
Int J Prosthodont. 2020 Sep/Oct;33(5):565-571
pubmed: 32956438
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Dec 5;34(1):205–213
pubmed: 30521660
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):526-32
pubmed: 24721507
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018 Jan;34(1):56-64
pubmed: 29310817
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Nov/Dec;33(6):1213-1218
pubmed: 30427951
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan;43(1):117-25
pubmed: 25434287
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Oct;27(10):1243-1250
pubmed: 26584716
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018 Jan/Feb;38(1):113-119
pubmed: 29240212
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Apr;113(4):295-303
pubmed: 25681352
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Nov;28(11):1360-1367
pubmed: 28039903
J Prosthodont. 2019 Jun;28(5):511-518
pubmed: 30994948
Ann Anat. 2019 Sep;225:1-10
pubmed: 31063802
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Sep/Oct;35(5):e86-e90
pubmed: 32991657
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019 Jan 1;24(1):e76-e83
pubmed: 30573712