Comparison of postoperative intraoral scan versus cone beam computerised tomography to measure accuracy of guided implant placement—A prospective clinical study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Skjerven ◽  
Heming Olsen‐Bergem ◽  
Hans Jacob Rønold ◽  
Ulf H. Riis ◽  
Jan Eirik Ellingsen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Prospective Clinical Study ◽  
Computerised Tomography ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Does the macro design of an implant affect the accuracy of template-guided implantation? A prospective clinical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigmar Schnutenhaus ◽  
Cornelia Edelmann ◽  
Heike Rudolph
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Soft Tissues ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Prospective Clinical Study ◽  
Angular Deviation ◽  
Optimal Position ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
High Level ◽  
Achievable Accuracy

Abstract Background An implant prosthesis aims to ensure the best possible rehabilitation of function and esthetics following tooth loss. Template-guided insertion is used to achieve an optimal position of the implant with regard to prosthetic restorability, bone availability, and condition of the surrounding soft tissues. The accuracy of template-guided implant placement is subject to various influencing factors. The clinically achievable accuracy depending on the macro design of the implant body was investigated in this prospective clinical study. Material and methods In this prospective clinical study, 20 implants were placed in 20 patients. The implant had a pronounced conical outer geometry (Conelog ProgressiveLine, Camlog Wimsheim, Germany). Data from a study using an implant with a distinct cylindrical outer geometry were used as a comparison group (Conelog ScrewLine, Camlog, Wimsheim, Germany). The clinically achieved implant position was compared with the planned position. Results The evaluation of the two-dimensional deviations in direction resulted in the following mean values (standard deviation) at the shoulder: 0.42 mm (0.33) in the buccolingual direction, 0.27 mm (0.25) in the mesiodistal direction, and 0.68 mm (0.55) in the apicocoronal direction. The mean angular deviation was 4.1° (2.3). The three-dimensional (3D) deviation was 0.94 mm (0.53) at the shoulder and 1.36 mm (0.62) at the apex of the implant. Significant differences between implants with different macro designs were found in the apicocoronal direction. In connection to this, a significant 3D deviation was found at the implant shoulder. Conclusions Significant differences in height were found between the groups. The study had shown that the macro design of an implant has no influence on accuracy in all other directions. Overall, the implants showed a high level of accuracy and a low variation in values. The values were in the range determined by the template-guided insertion system in numerous other investigations. This provides good predictability of prosthetic rehabilitation. Trial registration German Register for Clinical Studies (DRKS-ID: DRKS000018939). Date of registration: November 11, 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document