Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Implant Dentistry
Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Silicone | Research

Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: a comparative study

Authors: Koudai Nagata, Kei Fuchigami, Noriyuki Hoshi, Mihoko Atsumi, Katsuhiko Kimoto, Hiromasa Kawana

Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Implant treatment using guided surgery is becoming widespread in clinical dental practice. Furthermore, the development of digital technology has enabled the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) to fabricate surgical guide plates. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of guided surgery using the silicone impression method with a three-dimensional (3D) scanner and the digital impression method with IOS for one side of the mandibular free end. In addition, we compared the accuracy of tooth-supported vs tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plates.

Results

The accuracy of the tooth-supported surgical guide plate using the new IOS method instead of the method of obtaining impressions with conventional silicone resulted in better measurements of 3D deviation at the crest, 3D deviation at the apex, and angular deviation. In terms of the accuracy of the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate, there were no significant differences in all measurements. The surgical guide plate using an IOS and the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate may enable more accurate guided surgery.

Conclusion

Tooth/mucosa-supported guided surgery involving preparation with an IOS may result in more accurate implant surgery.
Literature
1.
Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:234–42.PubMed
2.
Joda T, Derksen W, Wittneben JG, Kuehl S. Static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), economics and surgical complications: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:359–73.CrossRef
3.
Monaco C, Arena A, Corsaletti L, Santomauro V, Venezia P. 2D/3D accuracies of implant position after guided surgery using different surgical protocols: a retrospective study. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64:424–30.CrossRef
4.
Camardella LT, Vilella OV, van Hezel MM, Breuning KH. Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78:394–402.CrossRef
5.
Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos VO, Breuning H. Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases. Am J Orthodont Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151:1178–87.CrossRef
6.
Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM. Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0157713.CrossRef
7.
Baig MR, Buzayan MM, Yunus N. Accuracy of a new elastomeric impression material for complete-arch dental implant impressions. J Invest Clin Dentistry. 2018;9:e12320.CrossRef
8.
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1759–64.CrossRef
9.
Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1687–94.CrossRef
10.
Derksen W, Wismeijer D, Flügge T, Hassan B, Tahmaseb A. The accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery with tooth supported, digitally designed drill guides based on CBCT and intraoral scanning. A prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:1005–15.CrossRef
11.
Smitkarn P, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. The accuracy of single-tooth implants placed using fully digital-guided surgery and freehand implant surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46:949–57.CrossRef
12.
Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:416–23.CrossRef
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;29:416–35.CrossRef
14.
Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:25–42.CrossRef
15.
El Kholy K, Janner SFM, Schimmel M, Buser D. The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static computer assisted implant surgery. Clin Implant Dentistry Relat Res. 2019;21:101–7.CrossRef
16.
Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:101–15.CrossRef
17.
El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner SFM, 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;30:1067–75.CrossRef
18.
Toyoshima T, Tanaka H, Sasaki M, Ichimaru E, Naito Y. Accuracy of implant surgery with surgical guide by inexperienced clinicians: an in vitro study. Clin Exp Dental Res. 2015;1:10–7.CrossRef
19.
Kattadiyil MT, Parciak E, Puri S, Scherer MD. CAD/CAM guided surgery in implant dentistry: a brief review. Alpha Omegan. 2014;107:26–31.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: a comparative study
Authors
Koudai Nagata
Kei Fuchigami
Noriyuki Hoshi
Mihoko Atsumi
Katsuhiko Kimoto
Hiromasa Kawana
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Silicone
Published in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2198-4034
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00281-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

International Journal of Implant Dentistry 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical outcomes following peri-implant vestibuloplasty with a free gingival graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix: a comparative prospective clinical study

Case Report

A segmental osteotomy with 3D virtual planning to move a malpositioned dental implant

Research

Multivariate analysis of causal factors influencing accuracy of guided implant surgery for partial edentulism: a retrospective clinical study

Research

Immediate and early loading of hydrothermally treated, hydroxyapatite-coated dental implants: a 7-year prospective randomized clinical study

Research

Retrospective study of alveolar ridge preservation compared with no alveolar ridge preservation in periodontally compromised extraction sockets

Research

Implant survival after graftless sinus floor augmentation in highly atrophic maxillae: a randomized controlled trial in a split mouth study