The Impact of Surgical Guide Fixation and Implant Location on Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) for tooth-supported free-end dental implantation with the aid/and without the aid of fixation pins to secure the surgical template through comparison between planned, 3D printed guide position and placement implant position.

Materials and methods: Thirty-two duplicated maxillary resin models were used in the present in vitro study. Digital planning was performed and fabrication of a surgical template that allowed implant placement on the distal extension edentulous site of the model (maxillary left side). A first optical scan was performed after fitting the surgical template on the model to assess the deviation at the surgical guide level. After placing implants in the model using the surgical guide, scan bodies were attached to the implants, and a second scan was performed to record the position of placed implants. The digital representations were later superimposed to the pre-operative scan and measurements of implant deviations were performed. Global (coronal and apical), horizontal (coronal and apical), depth and angular deviations were recorded between planned implant position, guide position, and placement implant position. Three-way ANOVA was used to compare implant location (#13, 14, and 15), fixation pin (with or without pin), and guide comparison (planned, guided, and placement).

Results: Final implant placement based on the digital plan and based on the 3D printed guide were very similar except for depth deviation. Use of fixation pin had a statistically significant effect on the depth and angular deviation. Overall, without fixation pins and based on guide versus placement, mean global coronal (0.88 ± 0.36 mm), horizontal coronal (0.55 ± 0.32 mm), and apical (1.44 ± 0.75 mm), and angular deviations (4.28 ± 2.01°) were similar to deviations with fixation pins: mean global coronal (0.88 ± 0.36 mm); horizontal coronal (0.67 ± 0.22 mm) and apical (1.60 ± 0.69 mm); and angular deviations (4.53 ± 2.04°). Horizontal apical without pins (1.63 ± 0.69 mm) and with fixation pins (1.72 ± 0.70 mm) was statistically significant (p = 0.044). Depth deviation without pins (-0.5 ± 0.5 mm) and with fixation pins (-0.16 ± 0.62 mm) was also statistically significant (p = 0.005). Further analysis demonstrated that the final sleeve position on the 3D printed guide was on average 0.5 mm more coronal than the digital plan.

Conclusions: The use of surgical guides with or without fixation pins can provide clinically acceptable outcomes in terms of accuracy in implant position. There was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of implant position when utilizing fixation pins only for horizontal apical and depth deviation. Additionally, a statistically significant difference between the planned and the 3D printed surgical guide when considering the sleeve position was detected.

Keywords: Computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS); dental implants; digital planning; digital workflow; guided surgery; surgical guide.