Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 38
  • /
  • Pages.15.1-15.6
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical problems of computer-guided implant surgery

  • Moon, Seong-Yong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Lee, Kyoung-Rok (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Su-Gwan (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Son, Mee-Kyoung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2016.02.05
  • Accepted : 2016.03.13
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The utilization of a cone-beam computed tomography (CT)-assisted surgical template allows for predictable results because implant placement plans can be performed in the actual surgery. In order to assess the accuracy of the CT-guided surgery, angular errors and shoulder/apex distance errors were evaluated by data fusion from before and after the placement. Methods: Computer-guided implant surgery was performed in five patients with 19 implants. In order to analyze differences of the implant fixture body between preoperative planned implant and postoperative placed implant, angular error and distance errors were evaluated. Results: The mean angular errors between the preoperative planned and postoperative placed implant was $3.84^{\circ}{\pm}1.49^{\circ}$; the mean distance errors between the planned and placed implants were $0.45{\pm}0.48mm$ horizontally and $0.63{\pm}0.51mm$ vertically at the implant neck and $0.70{\pm}0.63mm$ horizontally and $0.64{\pm}0.57mm$ vertically at the implant apex for all 19 implants. Conclusions: It is important to be able to utilize these methods in actual clinical settings by improving the various problems, including the considerations of patient mouth opening limitations, surgical guide preparation, and fixation.

Keywords

References

  1. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K et al (1999) Predictability of a threedimensional planning system for oral implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 28:105-111. doi:10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600419
  2. Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME et al (2007) Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 34:816-821. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01110.x
  3. Nickenig H-J, Eitner S (2007) Reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical (guide) templates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 35:207-211. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2007.02.004
  4. Klein M, Abrams M (2001) Computer-guided surgery utilizing a computermilled surgical template. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 13:165-9-quiz 170
  5. Lee J-H, Kim S-M, Paeng J-Y, Kim M-J (2010) Implant surgery based on computer simulation surgical stent and the assessment with the image fusion technique. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:402. doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2010.36.5.402
  6. Di Giacomo GAP, Cury PR, de Araujo NS et al (2005) Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol 76:503-507. doi:10.1902/jop.2005.76.4.503
  7. Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE (2009) A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided templatebased implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(Suppl 4):73-86. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x
  8. Kramer F-J, Baethge C, Swennen G, Rosahl S (2005) Navigated vs. conventional implant insertion for maxillary single tooth replacement. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:60-68. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01058.x
  9. Hoffmann J, Westendorff C, Gomez-Roman G, Reinert S (2005) Accuracy of navigation-guided socket drilling before implant installation compared to the conventional free-hand method in a synthetic edentulous lower jaw model. Clin Oral Implants Res 16:609-614. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01153.x
  10. Nickenig H-J, Wichmann M, Hamel J et al (2010) Evaluation of the difference in accuracy between implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates versus the conventional free-hand method-a combined in vivo - in vitro technique using cone-beam CT (Part II). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38:488-493. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2009.10.023
  11. Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE et al (2009) Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:394-401. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2008.09.033

Cited by

  1. Computer assisted surgery and dental cone-beam CT vol.62, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5794/jjoms.62.602
  2. 3D Printing Guide Implant Placement: A Case Report vol.21, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1515/bjdm-2017-0010
  3. Postoperative Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Mandibular Contouring Surgery Using Computer-Assisted Simulation Planning and a Three-Dimensional-Printed Surgical Guide vol.28, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003442
  4. Recent advances in dental implants vol.39, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0132-2
  5. Double Guided Surgery in All-on-4 ® Concept: When Ostectomy Is Needed vol.2018, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2672549
  6. A Flapless Surgical Placement of Implants in Mandibular Arch Using Computer-Guided Surgical Stent vol.9, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/2229411218766969
  7. The accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis vol.29, pp.16, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13346
  8. Analysis of Linear and Angular Deviations of Implants Installed With a Tomographic-Guided Surgery Technique: A Prospective Cohort Study vol.45, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-18-00265
  9. A Prospective Study on Accuracy of Computer-Based Fully Guided Versus Pilot-Guided Implant Surgery vol.10, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10061975
  10. Influence of bone condition on implant placement accuracy with computer-guided surgery vol.6, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00249-z