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

This in-vitro study compared the accuracy of implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) at two implant sites. 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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of dentistry 2023-05, Vol.132, p.104487-104487, Article 104487
Main Authors: Taheri Otaghsara, Seyedeh Sahar, Joda, Tim, Thieringer, Florian Markus
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
3D-printing
Computer-Aided Design
Computers
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Cone-beam computer tomography
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
Dental Implants
Digital dentistry
Image-guided surgery
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Navigation system
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This in-vitro study compared the accuracy of implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) at two implant sites. 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. 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. 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. Both static and dynamic CAIS demonstrate high accuracy for guided implant placement..
ISSN:0300-5712
1879-176X
DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104487