Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery in the Partially Edentulous Jaw Using Digital impression versus Desktop Scanner and CBCT cast scan: Randomized Clinical Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2023.11379Keywords:
Surgical guide, Digital impression, Desktop scannerAbstract
AIM: The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of surgical guided implant produced by intraoral scanner, desktop scanner, and CBCT cast scan.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 63 dental implants were placed using 14 surgical guides. A total of 15 subjects, eight males and seven females (eight bilateral cases and seven unliteral cases), with mean age of 45 years (38–55 years) were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 21 each): Group 1: Surgical guide manufactured using intraoral digital impression. Group 2: Surgical guide manufactured using model cast scanning by CBCT while Group 3: Surgical guide manufactured using model cast scanning by desktop scanner the linear and angular deviations of inserted planned implants were measured.
RESULTS: In the intraoral scan group, the mean angular deviation, platform 3D deviation, apical 3D deviation, and vertical deviation were 2.5°, 0.7 mm, 1.1 mm, and 0.6 mm, respectively. While in desktop scanner group, the mean angular deviation, platform 3D deviation, apical 3D deviation, and vertical deviation were 2.6°, 0.1 mm, 1.1 mm, and 1.1 mm, respectively. In the CBCT scan group, the mean angular deviation, 3D platform deviation, 3D apical deviation, and vertical deviation were 3.5°, 1.3 mm, 1.6 mm, and 1.7 mm, respectively. There is no statistically significance difference between intraoral scanner, CBCT cast scan, and desktop scanning on implant deviation that was observed.
CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significance difference between intraoral scanner, CBCT cast scan, and desktop scanning on implant deviation that was observed although IOS shows better accuracy and least mean angular deviation.
Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Ashtiani RE, Ghasemi Z, Nami M, Mighani F, Namdari M. Accuracy of static digital surgical guides for dental implants based on the guide system: A systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;122(6):600-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2020.10.010 PMid:33161170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2020.10.010
Elkomy MM, Khamis MM, El-Sharkawy AM. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implants placed with fully guided versus partially guided tissue-supported surgical guides: A split- mouth clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(1):58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.05.009 PMid:32768182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.05.009
Thangwarawut P, Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Kiattavorncharoen S. Comparison of different types of static computer-guided implant surgery in varying bone inclinations. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(9):3004. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093004 PMid:35591339 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093004
Kernen F, Benic GI, Payer M, Schär A, Müller-Gerbl M, Filippi A, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional printed templates for guided implant placement based on matching a surface scan with CBCT. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(4):762-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12348 PMid:25923363 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12348
Chen Y, Zhai Z, Watanabe S, Nakano T, Ishigaki S. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners. J Dent. 2022;124:104220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104220 PMid:35817227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104220
Andreini NI, Bryington MS, Dye BD, Weaver B. Assessment of Surgical Guide Accuracy Utilizing a Digital Workflow. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports; 2018. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.5107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.5107
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x PMid:29233132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
Mohamed AM. Effect of desktop scanning protocol on accuracy of guided implant placement in completely edentulous patients. Egypt Dent J. 2021;67(3):2213-22. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2021.62087.1489 9. Putra RH, Yoda N, Astuti ER, Sasaki K. The accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery in partially edentulous patients and possible influencing factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2022a;66(1):29-39. https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_20_00184 PMid:33504723 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00184
Lin CC, Wu CZ, Huang MS, Huang CF, Cheng HC, Wang DP. Fully digital workflow for planning static guided implant surgery: A prospective accuracy study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):980. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9040980 PMid:32244735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9040980
Nagata K, Fuchigami K, Hoshi N, Atsumi M, Kimoto K, Kawana H. Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: A comparative study. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00281-z PMid:33432526 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00281-z
Kiatkroekkrai P, Takolpuckdee C, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. Accuracy of implant position when placed using static computer-assisted implant surgical guides manufactured with two different optical scanning techniques: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(3):377-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.08.019 PMid:31543382 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.08.019
Gargallo-Albiol J, Zilleruelo-Pozo MJ, Lucas-Taulé E, Muñoz- Peñalver J, Paternostro-Betancourt D, Hernandez-Alfaro F. Accuracy of static fully guided implant placement in the posterior area of partially edentulous jaws: A cohort prospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(3):2783-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00784-021-04254-3 PMid:34782925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04254-3
Pandey AK, Akkara F, Dhupar V. Efficacy of implant placement with surgical guides in the rehabilitation of the edentulous areas: An observational study and review of literature. Adv Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;8:100320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adoms.2022.100320
L’Alzit FR, Cade R, Naveau A, Babilotte J, Meglioli M, Catros S. Accuracy of commercial 3D printers for the fabrication of surgical guides in dental implantology. J Dent. 2022;117:103909. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103909 PMid:34852291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103909
Reyes A, Turkyilmaz I, Prihoda TJ. Accuracy of surgical guides made from conventional and a combination of digital scanning and rapid prototyping techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(4):295-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.018 PMid:25681352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.018
Colombo M, Mangano C, Mijiritsky E, Krebs M, Hauschild U, Fortin T. Clinical applications and effectiveness of guided implant surgery: A critical review based on randomized controlled trials. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0441-y PMid:29237427 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0441-y
Emara A, Sharma N, Halbeisen FS, Msallem B, Thieringer FM. Comparative evaluation of digitization of diagnostic dental cast (plaster) models using different scanning technologies. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8(3):79. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8030079 PMid:32748890 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8030079
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Norhan Ali, Emad Mohamed Tolba , Maha Amer (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
