Accuracy of the evaluation of implant position using a completely digital registration method compared with a radiographic method.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Conventional radiographic methods are widely used to evaluate the clinical accuracy of implant position. However, such methods require a second computerized tomography (CT) scan and manual registration between presurgical and postsurgical CT data. The alignment errors cannot be calculated. PURPOSE The purpose of this clinical study was to introduce a completely digital registration method to evaluate the clinical accuracy of implant position. The digital registration method was then compared with the radiographic method in evaluating accuracy. Some of the alignment errors produced in the digital registration procedures were recorded. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 32 implants from 19 patients with sufficient bone volume were enrolled in the study, and all implant surgeries were conducted by one experienced practitioner. Before the surgery, a cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scan was made for each patient along with a diagnostic impression to design the ideal implant position using the Simplant software. After the surgery, the postsurgical implant position was determined using an optical scan of the dentition cast and a series of custom registration models (the digital registration method). A simulated cylinder was designed using the Geomagic Studio software to represent the implant, and the deviation of the ideal and postsurgical implant position was calculated. The accuracy evaluated by the 2 methods was also compared. The parameters of the entrance point, apical point, and axis were recorded for each implant. A part of the alignment errors in the digital registration was calculated automatically and recorded. One sample t test and paired t test were conducted by using a statistical software program. RESULTS The mean deviation between the ideal and postsurgical implant positions evaluated using the digital registration method was 0.84 ±0.57 mm for the entrance point, 1.03 ±0.78 mm for the apical point, and 4.52 ±2.37 degrees for the angulation. No significant difference was found between the accuracy evaluated by the digital registration method and the radiographic method (P>.05). In the digital registration procedure, the alignment error was 0.03 mm for the registration model and 0.29 mm for the dentition. Significant differences were found in the alignment procedure of the impression cylinder (P<.001) and dentition (P<.001). The average positive and negative errors were +0.09 and -0.19 mm for the simulated cylinder of the ideal implant and +0.08 and -0.15 mm for the simulated cylinder of the postsurgical implant. CONCLUSIONS The precision of the digital registration method could be accepted in clinical applications. No significant difference was found between the digital registration method and the radiographic method in evaluating the clinical accuracy of the implant position. The digital registration method was able to control and minimize the alignment errors produced during data processing.

[1]  M. Lorenzoni,et al.  Three-dimensional accuracy of guided implant placement: indirect assessment of clinical outcomes. , 2013, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[2]  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.

[3]  Reinhilde Jacobs,et al.  A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality. , 2010, European journal of radiology.

[4]  Daniel Wismeijer,et al.  Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  H. Rudolph,et al.  Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method. , 2016, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[6]  D M Almog,et al.  Fabrication of imaging and surgical guides for dental implants. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  Anne Thilander-Klang,et al.  Evaluation of subjective image quality in relation to diagnostic task for cone beam computed tomography with different fields of view. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[8]  P. Shen,et al.  Accuracy evaluation of computer-designed surgical guide template in oral implantology. , 2015, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[9]  Tohru Kurabayashi,et al.  A comparative study for spatial resolution and subjective image characteristics of a multi-slice CT and a cone-beam CT for dental use. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[10]  Panos Papaspyridakos,et al.  Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a comparative study , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.

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

[12]  Ai Komiyama,et al.  Virtually planned and template-guided implant surgery: an experimental model matching approach. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  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.

[14]  R. Jacobs,et al.  Accuracy of segmentation of tooth structures using 3 different CBCT machines. , 2017, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology.

[15]  Bernard Koong,et al.  Cone beam imaging: is this the ultimate imaging modality? , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  D. Gaudillière,et al.  Freehand Versus Guided Surgery: Factors Influencing Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement. , 2017, Implant dentistry.

[17]  Nikolaus Behneke,et al.  Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[18]  Seyoun Park,et al.  Combining volumetric dental CT and optical scan data for teeth modeling , 2015, Comput. Aided Des..

[19]  M. Ivanovic,et al.  Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. , 2008, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[20]  M. Cassetta,et al.  The intrinsic error of a stereolithographic surgical template in implant guided surgery. , 2013, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[21]  Gerlig Widmann,et al.  Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery--a review. , 2006, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[22]  M. Trulsson,et al.  Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[23]  P. Cattin,et al.  Accuracy of full guided vs. half-guided implant surgery. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  Bassam Hassan,et al.  Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans – A prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[25]  Micha Sharir,et al.  On the performance of the ICP algorithm , 2008, Comput. Geom..

[26]  Mohamed A. Deriche,et al.  3D registration using a new implementation of the ICP algorithm based on a comprehensive lookup matrix: Application to medical imaging , 2007, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[27]  Mohammad Javad Kharazifard,et al.  Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[28]  Ai Komiyama,et al.  Accuracy of virtually planned and template guided implant surgery on edentate patients. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[29]  Andreas Künzel,et al.  Accuracy of peri-implant bone thickness and validity of assessing bone augmentation material using cone beam computed tomography , 2012, Clinical Oral Investigations.