Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Influence of implant diameter on accuracy of static implant guided surgery: An in vitro study

Published:December 02, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.11.004

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Static guided implant surgery may be the most accurate method of implant placement to date. However, within the same guided implant system, whether accuracy is affected when placing a larger diameter implant that requires more drills than a smaller diameter implant is unclear.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of implant diameter on the angulation and 3-dimensional (3D) deviations of posterior single implant placement using static guided surgery.

      Material and methods

      A polyurethane dental cast was made with an edentulous site at the maxillary right first molar position. Identical implant planning for each of 3 dental implant diameters 3.3, 4.1, and 4.8 mm (Straumann BLT) were made, and surgical guides for each implant diameters were fabricated by stereolithography. Fifteen implants of each diameter (N=45) were placed in simulated casts. A scan body was placed and the cast was scanned using an intraoral scanner. The positional discrepancies of implant placement, including angulation as well as 3D implant cervical and apex area deviations, were compared with the planned position. Linear ANOVA single factor analysis (ɑ=.05) was used, and box plots were made.

      Results

      The ranges of angulation deviations for 3.3-, 4.1-, and 4.8-mm implants were 3.6 degrees to 6.0 degrees, 3.7 degrees to 7.7 degrees, and 3.1 degrees to 6.7 degrees, respectively. The ranges of 3D implant entry deviations of 3.3-, 4.1-, and 4.8-mm implants were 0.96 to 1.4, 0.85 to 1.72, and 0.89 to 1.78 mm, respectively. The ranges of 3D implant apex of 3.3-, 4.1-, and 4.8-mm implants were 0.63 to 1.21, 0.64 to 1.48, and 0.48 to 1.27 mm, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in any of the 3 measurements: P=.67 for deviation in angulation; P=.27 for 3D implant deviation of entry; and P=.3 for 3D implant deviation of the apex.

      Conclusions

      Implant diameters had no significant effect on placement deviations when a single posterior static guided surgery was used.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • D’haese J.
        • Ackhurst J.
        • Wismeijer D.
        • De Bruyn H.
        • Tahmaseb A.
        Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery.
        Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73: 121-133
        • Flügge T.
        • Kramer J.
        • Nelson K.
        • Nahles S.
        • Kernen F.
        Digital implantology-a review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery. Part II: prosthetic set-up and virtual implant planning.
        BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22: 23
        • Dreiseidler T.
        • Neugebauer J.
        • Ritter L.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of a newly developed integrated system for dental implant planning.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20: 1191-1199
        • Behneke A.
        • Burwinkel M.
        • Knierim K.
        • Behneke N.
        Accuracy assessment of cone beam computed tomography-derived laboratory-based surgical templates on partially edentulous patients.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 137-143
        • Whitley D.
        • Scott Eidson R.
        • Rudek I.
        • Bencharit S.
        In-office fabrication of dental implant surgical guides using desktop stereolithographic printing and implant treatment planning software: a clinical report.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 256-263
        • Whitley D.
        • Bencharit S.
        Digital implantology with desktop 3D Printing.
        Formlab Whitepaper, Formlabs, Somerville, MA2015: 1-16
        • Deeb G.R.
        • Allen R.K.
        • Patrick Hall V.
        • Whitley D.
        • Laskin D.M.
        • Bencharit S.
        How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-Dimensional printers?.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 75: 2559.e1-2559.e8
        • Bencharit S.
        • Staffen A.
        • Yeung M.
        • Whitley D.
        • Laskin D.M.
        • Deeb G.R.
        In vivo tooth-supported implant surgical guides fabricated with desktop stereolithographic printers: fully guided surgery is more accurate than partially guided surgery.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76: 1431-1439
        • Abduo J.
        • Lau D.
        Seating accuracy of implant immediate provisional prostheses fabricated by digital workflow prior to implant placement by fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery: an in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32: 608-618
        • Wu Y.T.
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Kang K.
        • Finkelman M.
        • Kudara Y.
        • De Souza A.
        Accuracy of different surgical guide designs for static computer-assisted implant surgery: an in vitro study.
        J Oral Implantol. 2022; 48: 351-357
        • Pessoa R.
        • Siqueira R.
        • Li J.
        • Saleh I.
        • Meneghetti P.
        • Bezerra F.
        • et al.
        The Impact of Surgical Guide Fixation and Implant Location on Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surger.
        J Prosthodont. 2022; 31: 155-164
        • Kiatkroekkrai P.
        • Takolpuckdee C.
        • Subbalekha K.
        • Mattheos N.
        • Pimkhaokham A.
        Accuracy of implant position when placed using static computer-assisted implant surgical guides manufactured with two different optical scanning techniques: a randomized clinical trial.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 49: 377-383
        • Kniha K.
        • Schlegel K.A.
        • Kniha H.
        Benefits and disadvantages of guided surgery (Flap vs. Flapless). Guided surgery in implantology.
        Springer International, 2021: 3-8
        • Kholy K.E.
        • El Kholy K.
        • Lazarin R.
        • et al.
        Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 1067-1075
        • Sittikornpaiboon P.
        • Arunjaroensuk S.
        • Kaboosaya B.
        • Subbalekha K.
        • Mattheos N.
        • Pimkhaokham A.
        Comparison of the accuracy of implant placement using different drilling systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery: a simulation-based experimental study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021; 23: 635-643
        • Yeung M.
        • Abdulmajeed A.
        • Carrico C.K.
        • Deeb G.R.
        • Bencharit S.
        Accuracy and precision of 3D-printed implant surgical guides with different implant systems: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 821-828
        • Kholy K.E.
        • El Kholy K.
        • Ebenezer S.
        • et al.
        Influence of implant macrodesign and insertion connection technology on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21: 1073-1079
        • Thanasrisuebwong P.
        • Pimkhaokham A.
        • Jirajariyavej B.
        • Bencharit S.
        Influence of the residual ridge widths and implant thread designs on implant positioning using static implant guided surgery.
        J Prosthodont. 10 June 2022; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13557
        • Kholy K.E.
        • El Kholy K.
        • Janner S.F.M.
        • Schimmel M.
        • Buser D.
        The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21: 101-107
        • Adams C.R.
        • Ammoun R.
        • Deeb G.R.
        • Bencharit S.
        Influence of metal guide sleeves on the accuracy and precision of dental implant placement using guided implant surgery: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthodont. 8 March 2022; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13503
        • Dalal N.
        • Ammoun R.
        • Abdulmajeed A.A.
        • Deeb G.R.
        • Bencharit S.
        Intaglio surface dimension and guide tube deviations of implant surgical guides influenced by printing layer thickness and angulation setting.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 161-165
        • Ammoun R.
        • Dalal N.
        • Abdulmajeed A.A.
        • Deeb G.R.
        • Bencharit S.
        Effects of two postprocessing methods onto surface dimension of in-office fabricated stereolithographic implant surgical guides.
        J Prosthodont. 2021; 30: 71-75
        • Marei H.F.
        • Abdel-Hady A.
        • Al-Khalifa K.
        • Al-Mahalawy H.
        Influence of surgeon experience on the accuracy of implant placement via a partially computer-guided surgical protocol.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 1177-1183
        • Koop R.
        • Vercruyssen M.
        • Vermeulen K.
        • Quirynen M.
        Tolerance within the sleeve inserts of different surgical guides for guided implant surgery.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 630-634
        • Laederach V.
        • Mukaddam K.
        • Payer M.
        • Filippi A.
        • Kühl S.
        Deviations of different systems for guided implant surgery.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1147-1151
        • Lerner H.
        • Nagy K.
        • Luongo F.
        • Luongo G.
        • Admakin O.
        • Mangano F.G.
        Tolerances in the production of six different implant scanbodies: a comparative study.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: 591-599