Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement.

PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical outcomes of implants placed using different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical guides, including partially guided and totally guided templates, and determine the accuracy of these guides Materials and methods: In total, 111 implants were placed in 24 patients using CAD/CAM surgical guides. After implant insertion, the positions and angulations of the placed implants relative to those of the planned ones were determined using special software that matched pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) images, and deviations were calculated and compared between the different guides and templates. RESULTS The mean angular deviations were 1.72 ± 1.67 and 2.71 ± 2.58, the mean deviations in position at the neck were 0.27 ± 0.24 and 0.69 ± 0.66 mm, the mean deviations in position at the apex were 0.37 ± 0.35 and 0.94 ± 0.75 mm, and the mean depth deviations were 0.32 ± 0.32 and 0.51 ± 0.48 mm with tooth- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides, respectively (P < .05 for all). The mean distance deviations when partially guided (29 implants) and totally guided templates (30 implants) were used were 0.54 ± 0.50 mm and 0.89 ± 0.78 mm, respectively, at the neck and 1.10 ± 0.85 mm and 0.81 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, at the apex, with corresponding mean angular deviations of 2.56 ± 2.23° and 2.90 ± 3.0° (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS Tooth-supported surgical guides may be more accurate than mucosa-supported guides, while both partially and totally guided templates can simplify surgery and aid in optimal implant placement.