Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Accuracy of dental implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: An in vitro study


Taheri Otaghsara, Seyedeh Sahar; Joda, Tim; Thieringer, Florian Markus (2023). Accuracy of dental implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: An in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry, 132:104487.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This in-vitro study compared the accuracy of implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) at two implant sites.
METHODS: Partially edentulous maxillary models were 3D-printed, and two implants (Straumann TL RN 4.1 × 10 mm) were inserted in FDI positions 15 and 16 per model using two CAIS approaches (10 models per approach). A three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction tool was used for implant planning, surgical guide design, and measuring implant positioning accuracy. In static CAIS, the implants were placed with 3D-printed surgical guides (n = 20); in dynamic CAIS, real-time navigation was performed (n = 20). Primary outcomes were defined as coronal and apical global deviation as well as angular deviations and deviation comparison between implants placed at positions 15 and 16; the secondary outcome was the bi-directional deviation in mesial-distal, buccal-palatal, and apical-coronal direction.
RESULTS: The mean coronal and apical global deviation for static CAIS for implant positions 15 were 0.88±0.31 mm and 1.45±0.37 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.67±0.31 mm, and 1.07±0.32 mm, respectively. In dynamic CAIS, the mean coronal and apical global deviation for implant position 15 were 0.97±0.32 mm and 1.58±0.56 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.79±0.29 mm and 1 ± 0.37 mm, respectively. Buccal-palatal deviation was higher using static CAIS, and mesial-distal deviation was higher in dynamic CAIS. In position 15, mesial-distal deviation at the apex and the platform were lower in static approaches than in dynamic ones. In implant position 16, buccal-palatal deviation at the apex was lower in the dynamic group than with static ones. For bi-directional analysis, buccal-palatal deviation at the platform (P = 0.0028) and mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0056) were significantly lower in molar sites using static CAIS. Mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0246) revealed significantly lower values in position 16 following dynamic CAIS.
CONCLUSIONS: Both static and dynamic CAIS resulted in accurate implant placement. However, dynamic CAIS exhibited higher deviation in the mesial direction in an in-vitro setting. In addition, the implant site affects the accuracy of both CAIS approaches.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both static and dynamic CAIS demonstrate high accuracy for guided implant placement.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This in-vitro study compared the accuracy of implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) at two implant sites.
METHODS: Partially edentulous maxillary models were 3D-printed, and two implants (Straumann TL RN 4.1 × 10 mm) were inserted in FDI positions 15 and 16 per model using two CAIS approaches (10 models per approach). A three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction tool was used for implant planning, surgical guide design, and measuring implant positioning accuracy. In static CAIS, the implants were placed with 3D-printed surgical guides (n = 20); in dynamic CAIS, real-time navigation was performed (n = 20). Primary outcomes were defined as coronal and apical global deviation as well as angular deviations and deviation comparison between implants placed at positions 15 and 16; the secondary outcome was the bi-directional deviation in mesial-distal, buccal-palatal, and apical-coronal direction.
RESULTS: The mean coronal and apical global deviation for static CAIS for implant positions 15 were 0.88±0.31 mm and 1.45±0.37 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.67±0.31 mm, and 1.07±0.32 mm, respectively. In dynamic CAIS, the mean coronal and apical global deviation for implant position 15 were 0.97±0.32 mm and 1.58±0.56 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.79±0.29 mm and 1 ± 0.37 mm, respectively. Buccal-palatal deviation was higher using static CAIS, and mesial-distal deviation was higher in dynamic CAIS. In position 15, mesial-distal deviation at the apex and the platform were lower in static approaches than in dynamic ones. In implant position 16, buccal-palatal deviation at the apex was lower in the dynamic group than with static ones. For bi-directional analysis, buccal-palatal deviation at the platform (P = 0.0028) and mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0056) were significantly lower in molar sites using static CAIS. Mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0246) revealed significantly lower values in position 16 following dynamic CAIS.
CONCLUSIONS: Both static and dynamic CAIS resulted in accurate implant placement. However, dynamic CAIS exhibited higher deviation in the mesial direction in an in-vitro setting. In addition, the implant site affects the accuracy of both CAIS approaches.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both static and dynamic CAIS demonstrate high accuracy for guided implant placement.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
3 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

17 downloads since deposited on 15 Nov 2023
17 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > General Dentistry
Uncontrolled Keywords:3D-printing; Cone-beam computer tomography; Digital dentistry; Image-guided surgery; Navigation system
Language:English
Date:1 May 2023
Deposited On:15 Nov 2023 08:26
Last Modified:29 Feb 2024 02:52
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0300-5712
OA Status:Hybrid
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104487
PubMed ID:36948382
  • Content: Published Version
  • Language: English
  • Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)