2D/3D accuracies of implant position after guided surgery using different surgical protocols: A retrospective study

Purpose: To compare the 2D and 3D positional accuracy of four guided surgical protocols using an analysis of linear and angular deviations. Methods: DICOM and.STLs files obtained from a CBCT and a digital impression were superimposed with software to plan implant position. Fifty-six patients were subdivided into 4 groups: FGA group (template support [Ts]: teeth [T]; bed preparation [Bp]: fully guided [FG]; implant insertion [Ii]: 3D template [3Dt]; device [D]: manual adapter [MA], FGM group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: fully guided mounter [FGM]), PG group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: manual; D: none) and MS group (Ts: mucosa; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: FGM). The position of 120 implants was assessed by superimposing the planned and final position recorded with a digital impression. Results: In FGA group, 3D deviations were 0.92 \ub1 0.52 mm at the implant head and 1.14 \ub1 0.54 mm at the apex, and the angular deviation (ang. dev.) was 2.45 \ub1 1.24\ub0. In FGM group, were 0.911 \ub1 0.44 mm (head) and 1.11 \ub1 0.54 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 2.73 \ub1 1.96\ub0. In PG group, were 0.95 \ub1 0.47 mm (head) and 1.17 \ub1 0.488 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 3.71 \ub1 1.67\ub0. In MS group, were 1.15 \ub1 0.45 mm (head) and 1.42 \ub1 0.45 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 4.19 \ub1 2.62\ub0. Ang. dev. of MS group was different from the other groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Guided surgery showed a sufficient accuracy

2D/3D accuracies of implant position after guided surgery using different surgical protocols: A retrospective study

Purpose: To compare the 2D and 3D positional accuracy of four guided surgical protocols using an analysis of linear and angular deviations. Methods: DICOM and.STLs files obtained from a CBCT and a digital impression were superimposed with software to plan implant position. Fifty-six patients were subdivided into 4 groups: FGA group (template support [Ts]: teeth [T]; bed preparation [Bp]: fully guided [FG]; implant insertion [Ii]: 3D template [3Dt]; device [D]: manual adapter [MA], FGM group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: fully guided mounter [FGM]), PG group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: manual; D: none) and MS group (Ts: mucosa; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: FGM). The position of 120 implants was assessed by superimposing the planned and final position recorded with a digital impression. Results: In FGA group, 3D deviations were 0.92 \ub1 0.52 mm at the implant head and 1.14 \ub1 0.54 mm at the apex, and the angular deviation (ang. dev.) was 2.45 \ub1 1.24\ub0. In FGM group, were 0.911 \ub1 0.44 mm (head) and 1.11 \ub1 0.54 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 2.73 \ub1 1.96\ub0. In PG group, were 0.95 \ub1 0.47 mm (head) and 1.17 \ub1 0.488 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 3.71 \ub1 1.67\ub0. In MS group, were 1.15 \ub1 0.45 mm (head) and 1.42 \ub1 0.45 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 4.19 \ub1 2.62\ub0. Ang. dev. of MS group was different from the other groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Guided surgery showed a sufficient accuracy