Accuracy of Implant Placement with a Navigation System, a Laboratory Guide, and Freehand Drilling.

PURPOSE Computer-aided surgery under navigation system guidance is widely applied in dental implant procedures. However, the accuracy of drilling with such navigation systems has not been comparatively evaluated alongside those of laboratory guide-based and freehand drilling. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the accuracies of these three drilling systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS A navigation system, a laboratory guide, and freehand drilling were used to drill 150 holes on 30 cast models. Two master models-one each for the maxilla and mandible-were prepared with the idea of placing five implants per cast. After drilling five holes on each cast, postoperative cone beam computed tomography images were acquired to measure the magnitude of errors. RESULTS The navigation system and laboratory guide were more accurate than freehand placement with respect to total errors at the entry and apex, lateral error at the apex, and angular error. The navigation system was more accurate than the laboratory guide with respect to angular error. Laboratory guide-based drilling was more accurate than freehand drilling in terms of lateral error at entry. CONCLUSION In comparison with the laboratory guide and freehand placement, the navigation system exhibited lower angular and axial errors. Despite its higher accuracy, the navigation system requires the operator to pay greater attention.

[1]  Jay S. Kim,et al.  Common orthodontic appliances cause artifacts that degrade the diagnostic quality of CBCT images. , 2007, Journal of the California Dental Association.

[2]  Hom-lay Wang,et al.  Implant Surgery Complications: Etiology and Treatment , 2008, Implant dentistry.

[3]  M. Kiran,et al.  Cone Beam Computed Tomography - Know its Secrets , 2015, Journal of international oral health : JIOH.

[4]  I. Rubira-Bullen,et al.  Visibility of the mandibular canal on CBCT cross-sectional images , 2011, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[5]  Patrícia Pereira-Maciel,et al.  The mandibular incisive canal and its anatomical relationships: A cone beam computed tomography study , 2014, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[6]  H. Bosmans,et al.  Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  A. Alhassani,et al.  Inferior alveolar nerve injury in implant dentistry: diagnosis, causes, prevention, and management. , 2010, The Journal of oral implantology.

[8]  David Sarment,et al.  Precision of flapless implant placement using real-time surgical navigation: a case series. , 2008, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  Volkan Arısan,et al.  Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. , 2010, Journal of periodontology.

[10]  Gerlig Widmann,et al.  Computer-assisted surgery in the edentulous jaw based on 3 fixed intraoral reference points. , 2010, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[11]  Soon-Chul Choi,et al.  An advanced navigational surgery system for dental implants completed in a single visit: an in vitro study. , 2015, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[12]  Georg Eggers,et al.  Accuracy of image-guided implantology. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  Morton L Perel,et al.  Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Implant Dentistry: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Report , 2012, Implant dentistry.

[14]  R. Eliashar,et al.  Computerized navigation for surgery of the lower jaw: comparison of 2 navigation systems. , 2008, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[15]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template. , 2014, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[16]  Y. Kim,et al.  Magnification rate of digital panoramic radiographs and its effectiveness for pre-operative assessment of dental implants. , 2011, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[17]  Eszter Somogyi-Ganss,et al.  Accuracy of a novel prototype dynamic computer-assisted surgery system. , 2015, Clinical oral implants research.

[18]  Volkan Arısan,et al.  Implant surgery using bone- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides in totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post-operative outcomes of computer-aided vs. standard techniques. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  G. Widmann,et al.  Errors and error management in image-guided craniomaxillofacial surgery. , 2009, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[20]  G. Kurtzman,et al.  Benefits of CBCT in Implant Planning , 2011 .

[21]  Carsten Westendorff,et al.  Accuracy of navigation-guided socket drilling before implant installation compared to the conventional free-hand method in a synthetic edentulous lower jaw model. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  Different techniques of static/dynamic guided implant surgery: modalities and indications. , 2014, Periodontology 2000.

[23]  M. Strauss,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of three different computer-aided surgery systems in dental implantology: optical tracking vs. stereolithographic splint systems. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  Ilser Turkyilmaz,et al.  Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. , 2012, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.