Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jun 15;8(6):8442-9.
eCollection 2015.

Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement

Wei Geng  1 , Changying Liu  2 , Yucheng Su  3 , Jun Li  2 , Yanmin Zhou  4
Affiliations

Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement

Wei Geng et al. Int J Clin Exp Med. .

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of implants placed using different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical guides, including partially guided and totally guided templates, and determine the accuracy of these guides Materials and methods: In total, 111 implants were placed in 24 patients using CAD/CAM surgical guides. After implant insertion, the positions and angulations of the placed implants relative to those of the planned ones were determined using special software that matched pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) images, and deviations were calculated and compared between the different guides and templates.

Results: The mean angular deviations were 1.72 ± 1.67 and 2.71 ± 2.58, the mean deviations in position at the neck were 0.27 ± 0.24 and 0.69 ± 0.66 mm, the mean deviations in position at the apex were 0.37 ± 0.35 and 0.94 ± 0.75 mm, and the mean depth deviations were 0.32 ± 0.32 and 0.51 ± 0.48 mm with tooth- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides, respectively (P < .05 for all). The mean distance deviations when partially guided (29 implants) and totally guided templates (30 implants) were used were 0.54 ± 0.50 mm and 0.89 ± 0.78 mm, respectively, at the neck and 1.10 ± 0.85 mm and 0.81 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, at the apex, with corresponding mean angular deviations of 2.56 ± 2.23° and 2.90 ± 3.0° (P > .05 for all).

Conclusions: Tooth-supported surgical guides may be more accurate than mucosa-supported guides, while both partially and totally guided templates can simplify surgery and aid in optimal implant placement.

Keywords: Dental implant; computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing; mucosa-supported guide; osseointegration; surgical guide; tooth-supported guide.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Treatment planning and implant selection using a computer program (Simplant®) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Computer-aided design of the surgical guide.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Surgery is completed using the computed-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical guide.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Matching procedure using Simplant® software. The planned implants are shown in red and the placed implants are shown in blue.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Matching procedure between planned (gray) and placed (blue) implants. α represents the angular deviation of the axis of the placed implant relative to the axis of the planned implant. a is the distance between the planned and placed implant at the neck; b is the distance between the planned and placed implant at the apex; and c is the deviation in depth of the placed implant relative to the depth of the planned implant.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The partially guided surgical template is often designed with a single pilot drill guide.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The totally guided surgical template is designed and used for osteotomy site preparation and implant delivery. Osteotomy sites are prepared using sequential, removable surgical drilling guides.
Figure 8
Figure 8
A tooth-supported surgical guide is seated and stabilized with the help of natural teeth.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bornstein MM, Halbritter S, Harnisch H, Weber HP, Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: indications, surgical procedures and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:1109–1116. - PubMed
    1. Gahleitner A, Watzek G, Imhof H. Dental CT: Imaging technique, anatomy, and pathologic conditions of the jaws. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:366–376. - PubMed
    1. Pramono C. Surgical technique for achieving implant parallelism and measurement of the discrepancy in panoramic radiograph. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64:799–803. - PubMed
    1. Lal K, White GS, Morea DN, Wright RF. Use of stereolithographic templates for surgical and prosthodontic implant planning and placement. Part I. The concept. J Prosthodont. 2006;15:51–58. - PubMed
    1. Nickenig HJ, Eitner S. Reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical (guide) templates. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2007;35:207–211. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources