Computer‐Guided Surgery Using Human Allogenic Bone Ring With Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Case Report

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerri Thomas Simpson ◽  
Matthew Bryington ◽  
Michele Agusto ◽  
Matthew Harper ◽  
Arif Salman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Allogenic Bone ◽  
Guided Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement

Atrophic Maxilla Rehabilitation Through Dental Implants Using the V-4 Strategy Associated With Guided Surgery: A Case Report and Technique Description

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurício Saraiva Meirelles ◽  
Daniel Costa Ferreira de Almeida ◽  
Glauco Rodrigues Velloso ◽  
Madelaine Torres ◽  
Suelen Cristina Sartoretto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Guided Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Atrophic Maxilla ◽  
Placement Accuracy ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
Maxillary Sinuses

Atrophic maxilla rehabilitation through dental implants is always a challenging procedure. However, alternative approaches such as guided surgery and the installation of short implants are progressively supplanting more invasive bone regeneration procedures. A V-4 technique described in 2016 facilitates the installation of dental implants in patients with atrophic maxilla; however, its authors recommend incision, flap opening, and elevation of the anterior area of the maxillary sinuses. This case report describes a less invasive proposal for modifying the technique through the association of guided surgery, which improves implant placement accuracy, shortens surgical time, and reduces morbidity.

Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Area Tooth Removal Using Bioextractor® and Immediate Implant Placement with Provisionalization: Case Report

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Sergio Charifker Ribeiro Martins ◽  
Leandro Lecio de Lima Souza ◽  
Karen Christina Soares Tenório ◽  
José Ricardo Mariano ◽  
Ricardo Alberto Heine
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Immediate Implant ◽  
Tooth Removal

scholarly journals Comparison of implant placement accuracy in two different preoperative digital workflows: navigated vs. pilot-drill-guided surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Spille ◽  
Feilu Jin ◽  
Eleonore Behrens ◽  
Yahya Açil ◽  
Jürgen Lichtenstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Navigation System ◽  
Entry Point ◽  
Angular Deviation ◽  
Guided Surgery ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Drill Guide ◽  
Navigation Group ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Master Model

Abstract Background The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows. Methods A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model. Results The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex. Conclusions The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document