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
. 2021 Jan 12;7(1):2.
doi: 10.1186/s40729-020-00281-z.

Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: a comparative study

Koudai Nagata  1 , Kei Fuchigami  1   2 , Noriyuki Hoshi  2 , Mihoko Atsumi  2 , Katsuhiko Kimoto  2 , Hiromasa Kawana  3
Affiliations

Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: a comparative study

Koudai Nagata et al. Int J Implant Dent. .

Abstract

Background: Implant treatment using guided surgery is becoming widespread in clinical dental practice. Furthermore, the development of digital technology has enabled the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) to fabricate surgical guide plates. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of guided surgery using the silicone impression method with a three-dimensional (3D) scanner and the digital impression method with IOS for one side of the mandibular free end. In addition, we compared the accuracy of tooth-supported vs tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plates.

Results: The accuracy of the tooth-supported surgical guide plate using the new IOS method instead of the method of obtaining impressions with conventional silicone resulted in better measurements of 3D deviation at the crest, 3D deviation at the apex, and angular deviation. In terms of the accuracy of the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate, there were no significant differences in all measurements. The surgical guide plate using an IOS and the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate may enable more accurate guided surgery.

Conclusion: Tooth/mucosa-supported guided surgery involving preparation with an IOS may result in more accurate implant surgery.

Keywords: Computer-aided surgery; Dental implant; Digital workflow; Guided surgery; Implant impression; Intraoral scanner.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Koudai Nagata, Kei Fuchigami, Noriyuki Hoshi, Mihoko Atsumi, Katsuhiko Kimoto, and Hiromasa Kawana declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the fabrication of surgical guide plates. Tooth-supported surgical guide plate and tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow chart of resin model production. Eighteen resin models were created from three-dimensional (3D) scans
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Guide system. a Sleeve height (H). b Key height. Modified and reprinted with permission from Straumann Japan (Tokyo)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Measurement of errors. a After implantation, STL data of the resin model equipped with a scan body are superimposed on coDiagnostiX simulation data. Accuracy was measured using the treatment evaluation tool. Blue: implantation position set using simulation. Red: implanted position. b Evaluation of deviation measurements
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Accuracy of tooth-supported surgical guides. a Three-dimensional (3D) deviation at the crest in 45. b 3D deviation at the crest in 47. c 3D deviation at the apex in 45. d 3D deviation at the apex in 47. e Angular deviation in 45. f Angular deviation in 47
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Accuracy of tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guides. a Three-dimensional (3D) deviation at the crest in 45. b 3D deviation at the crest in 47. c 3D deviation at the apex in 45. d 3D deviation at the apex in 47. e Angular deviation in 45. f Angular deviation in 47
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Comparison of tooth-supported and tooth/mucosa-supported guided surgeries. a Three-dimensional (3D) deviation at the crest in 45. b 3D deviation at the crest in 47. c 3D deviation at the apex in 45. d 3D deviation at the apex in 47. e Angular deviation in 45. f Angular deviation in 47
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:234–242. - PubMed
    1. Joda T, Derksen W, Wittneben JG, Kuehl S. Static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), economics and surgical complications: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:359–373. doi: 10.1111/clr.13136. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Monaco C, Arena A, Corsaletti L, Santomauro V, Venezia P. 2D/3D accuracies of implant position after guided surgery using different surgical protocols: a retrospective study. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64:424–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.11.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Camardella LT, Vilella OV, van Hezel MM, Breuning KH. Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78:394–402. doi: 10.1007/s00056-017-0093-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos VO, Breuning H. Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases. Am J Orthodont Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151:1178–1187. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.03.012. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources