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
Review
. 2020 Sep 10;20(1):251.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01208-1.

A review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery - data import and visualization, drill guide design and manufacturing

Florian Kernen  1 , Jaap Kramer  2 , Laura Wanner  2 , Daniel Wismeijer  3 , Katja Nelson  2 , Tabea Flügge  2   4
Affiliations
Review

A review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery - data import and visualization, drill guide design and manufacturing

Florian Kernen et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: Virtual implant planning systems integrate (cone beam-) computed tomography data to assess bone quantity and virtual models for the design of the implant-retained prosthesis and drill guides. Five commercially available systems for virtual implant planning were examined regarding the modalities of integration of radiographic data, virtual dental models and the design of drill guides for guided implant surgery. The purpose of this review was to describe the limitations of these available systems regarding the import of imaging data and the design and fabrication of a drill guide.

Methods: The following software systems were examined regarding the import of imaging data and the export of the virtual implant planning for the design and fabrication of a drill guide with the help of two clinical situations requiring dental implant therapy: coDiagnostiX™, DentalWings, Canada (CDX); Simplant Pro™, Dentsply, Sweden (SIM); Smop™, Swissmeda, Switzerland (SMP); NobelClinician™, Nobel Biocare, Switzerland (NC); Implant Studio, 3Shape, Denmark (IST). Assessment criteria included data formats and management as well as the workflow for the design and production of drill guides.

Results: All systems have a DICOM-interface ("Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine") for the import of radiographic data. Imaging artefacts could be reduced but not eliminated by manual data processing. The import of virtual dental models in a universal format (STL: Standard Tesselation Language) was possible with three systems; one system could only be used with a proprietary data format. All systems display three-dimensional surface models or two-dimensional cross-sections with varying orientation for virtual implant planning. Computer aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of drill guides may be performed by the user with the help of default parameters or solely by the provider of the software and thus without the influence of the clinician.

Conclusion: Data bases of commonly used implant systems are available in all tested software, however not all systems allow to plan and execute fully guided implant placement. An individual design and in-house manufacturing of the drill guide is only available in some software systems. However, at the time of publication most recent software versions showed flexibility in individual design and in-house manufacturing of drill guides.

Keywords: Computer-aided design; Computer-assisted surgery; Guided implant surgery; Virtual implant planning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Display of data import options. All systems could import (CB-)CT data displaying the alveolar bone in the implant region (a) and virtual stone casts representing tooth and mucosa surfaces (b)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Workflow for drill guide design with software systems for individual drill guide design (CDX, SMP, IST)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Design of implant drill guides in NobelClinician® (a), Implant Studio® (b), coDiagnostiX® (c), Simplant® (d) and SMOP® (e) by selecting the supporting surfaces
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bornstein MM, Horner K, Jacobs R. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):51–72. doi: 10.1111/prd.12161. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Braut V, Bornstein MM, Kuchler U, Buser D. Bone dimensions in the posterior mandible: a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Part 2--analysis of edentulous sites. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014;34(5):639–647. doi: 10.11607/prd.1895. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(1):106–114. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.03.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schulze R, Bruellmann DD, Roeder F, d'Hoedt B. Determination of projection geometry from quantitative assessment of the distortion of spherical references in single-view projection radiography. Med Phys. 2004;31(10):2849–2854. doi: 10.1118/1.1796951. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schulze R, Heil U, Gross D, Bruellmann DD, Dranischnikow E, Schwanecke U, Schoemer E. Artefacts in CBCT: a review. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011;40(5):265–273. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/30642039. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources