In Vivo and In Vitro Accuracy Analysis of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in an Edentulous Patient
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Recently, intraoral scanning (IOS) has been proposed as a new tool to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS); however, further research is needed to improve the precision of IOS for full-arch impressions. The purpose of the study was to assess the accuracy of s-CAIS in an edentulous patient either in vivo or in vitro with two different evaluation techniques and to investigate if their results are comparable. Methods: A patient with terminal dentition was selected and four implants were placed using s-CAIS with a bone-supported stackable template. Segmentation used for designing a template was 3D printed, and then four implants were placed in the model following the same protocol as for s-CAIS. The model then underwent cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and laboratory scanning to evaluate its accuracy. Data were uploaded to specific software, and accuracy values were automatically generated. Results: A statistical analysis was not attempted since all measurements were performed on the same patient and model. When descriptively comparing the accuracy of the two methods of treatment evaluation in the in vitro scenario, comparable results were obtained between IOS and CBCT, except for the angle. Conclusions: As the intraoral scanning procedure in fully edentulous patients is not yet clinically validated, utilizing CBCT can still be recommended for the accurate evaluation of computer-assisted implant placement.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental Radiography and Imaging · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy
Private Practice, Via Roma 103, 84091 Battipaglia, Italy
References (47)
Show source-provided references
1. Combining Intraoral Scans, Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Face Scans: The Virtual Patient10.1097/SCS.0000000000004485 ↗
2. Digital prosthetic workflow during COVID-19 pandemic to limit infection risk in dental practice10.1111/odi.13442 ↗
3. Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 202110.1111/clr.13797 ↗
4. Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques10.1111/jopr.13161 ↗
5. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1111/clr.13346 ↗
6. Computer-assisted implant placement and full-arch immediate loading with digitally prefabricated provisional prostheses without cast: A prospective pilot cohort study10.1186/s40729-021-00369-0 ↗
7. Di Murro, B., Papi, P., Passarelli, P.C., D’Addona, A., and Pompa, G. (2020). Attitude in Radiographic Post-Operative Assessment of Dental Implants among Italian Dentists: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Antibiotics, 9.10.3390/antibiotics9050234 ↗
8. Prevalence of peri-implant diseases among an Italian population of patients with metabolic syndrome: A cross-sectional study10.1002/JPER.19-0077 ↗
9. Di Murro, B., Pranno, N., Raco, A., Pistilli, R., Pompa, G., and Papi, P. (2020). Knowledge and Attitude towards Retrograde Peri-Implantitis among Italian Implantologists: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17.10.3390/ijerph17228356 ↗
10. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding contemporary surgical and radiographic techniques in implant dentistry10.11607/jomi.2013.g1 ↗
11. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: A systematic review10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2 ↗
12. Carosi, P., Lorenzi, C., Lio, F., Cardelli, P., Pinto, A., Laureti, A., and Pozzi, A. (2022). Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Flapless Implant Placement by Means of Mucosa-Supported Templates in Complete-Arch Restorations: A Systematic Review. Materials, 15.10.3390/ma15041462 ↗
13. Romandini, M., Ruales-Carrera, E., Sadilina, S., Hammerle, C.H.F., and Sanz, M. (2022). Minimal invasiveness at dental implant placement: A systematic review with meta-analyses on flapless fully guided surgery. Periodontol. 2000.10.1111/prd.12440 ↗
14. Mijiritsky, E., Ben Zaken, H., Shacham, M., Cinar, I.C., Tore, C., Nagy, K., and Ganz, S.D. (2021). Variety of Surgical Guides and Protocols for Bone Reduction Prior to Implant Placement: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.10.3390/ijerph18052341 ↗
15. Double Guided Surgery in All-on-4((R)) Concept: When Ostectomy Is Needed10.1155/2018/2672549 ↗
16. Computer-Aided Surgery and Immediate Loading to Rehabilitate Complete Arch with Four Dental Implants and Fixed Screw-Retained Prosthesis Up to 4 Years in Function: A Retrospective Study10.11607/jomi.8946 ↗
17. Combining guided alveolar ridge reduction and guided implant placement for all-on-4 surgery: A clinical report10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.006 ↗
18. Cone beam computed tomography in dentomaxillofacial radiology: A two-decade overview10.1259/dmfr.20200145 ↗
19. Impact of the blooming artefact on dental implant dimensions in 13 cone-beam computed tomography devices10.1186/s40729-021-00347-6 ↗
20. Accuracy of virtually planned and template guided implant surgery on edentate patients10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00285.x ↗
21. Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method10.1016/j.oooo.2015.12.012 ↗
22. An alternative method to match planned and achieved positions of implants, after virtual planning using cone-beam CT data and surgical guide templates--a method reducing patient radiation exposure (part I)10.1016/j.jcms.2009.10.025 ↗
23. 2D/3D accuracies of implant position after guided surgery using different surgical protocols: A retrospective study10.1016/j.jpor.2019.11.007 ↗
24. The digital patient—Imaging science in dentistry10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.019 ↗
25. Accuracy and dimensional reproducibility by model scanning, intraoral scanning, and CBCT imaging for digital implant dentistry10.1186/s40729-021-00343-w ↗
26. A method to evaluate the accuracy of dental implant placement without postoperative radiography after computer-guided implant surgery: A dental technique10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.015 ↗
27. A digital workflow for computer-guided implant surgery integrating CBCT, model scanning, and CAD/CAM for a complete edentulism implant-supported prosthesis: A technique procedure
28. Integration of imaging modalities in digital dental workflows—Possibilities, limitations, and potential future developments10.1259/dmfr.20210268 ↗
29. Digital Workflow for Full-Arch Immediate Implant Placement Using a Stackable Surgical Guide Fabricated Using SLM Technology10.1111/jopr.13375 ↗
30. Fully Digital Workflow with Magnetically Connected Guides for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation Following Guided Alveolar Ridge Reduction10.1111/jopr.13150 ↗
31. Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans—A prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides10.1111/clr.12925 ↗
32. The intrinsic error of a stereolithographic surgical template in implant guided surgery10.1016/j.ijom.2012.06.010 ↗
33. Clinical Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.07.007 ↗
34. A surgical stent for the Branemark Novum bone reduction procedure10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00037.x ↗
35. Accuracy of the match between cone beam computed tomography and model scan data in template-guided implant planning: A prospective controlled clinical study10.1111/cid.12614 ↗
36. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography-derived casts: A comparative study10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.021 ↗
37. 3D printed bone models in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery: A systematic review10.1186/s41205-020-00082-5 ↗
38. Evaluation of streak metal artifacts in cone beam computed tomography by using the Gumbel distribution: A phantom study10.1016/j.oooo.2020.08.031 ↗
39. Accuracy of computer-assisted template-based implant placement using conventional impression and scan model or intraoral digital impression: A randomised controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up
40. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies10.1111/clr.13309 ↗
41. Progress in digital dentistry: The practical use of intraoral scanners10.4012/dmj.2019-224 ↗
42. Nulty, A.B. (2021). A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners. Dent. J., 9.10.20944/preprints202105.0165.v1 ↗
43. Comparison of postoperative intraoral scan versus cone beam computerised tomography to measure accuracy of guided implant placement—A prospective clinical study10.1111/clr.13438 ↗
44. Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: A computed tomography-based clinical comparative study10.1902/jop.2009.090348 ↗
45. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: A systematic review
46. Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1111/clr.13719 ↗
47. Dynamic navigation guided surgery and prosthetics for immediate loading of complete-arch restoration10.1111/jerd.12710 ↗