Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Precise treatment planning before implant surgery is necessary to identify vital structures and to ensure a predictable restorative outcome. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement by using 3 different types of surgical guide: bone-supported, tooth-supported, and mucosa-supported. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty acrylic resin mandibles were fabricated with stereolithography (SLA) based on data from the cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scan of an edentulous patient. Ten of the mandibles were modified digitally before fabrication with the addition of 4 teeth, and 10 of the mandibles were modified after fabrication with soft acrylic resin to simulate mucosa. Each acrylic resin mandible had 5 implants virtually planned in a 3-D software program. A total of 150 implants were planned and placed by using SLA guides. Presurgical and postsurgical CBCT scans were superimposed to compare the virtual implant placement with the actual implant placement. For statistical analyses, a linear mixed models approach and t-test with the 2-sided alpha level set at .016 were used. All reported P values were adjusted by the Dunn-Sidak method to control the Type I error rate across multiple pairwise comparisons. RESULTS The mean angular deviation of the long axis between the planned and placed implants was 2.2 ±1.2 degrees; the mean deviations in linear distance between the planned and placed implants were 1.18 ±0.42 mm at the implant neck and 1.44 ±0.67 mm at the implant apex for all 150 implants. After the superimposition procedure, the angular deviation of the placed implants was 2.26 ±1.30 degrees with the tooth-supported, 2.17 ±1.02 degrees with the bone-supported, and 2.29 ±1.28 degrees with the mucosa-supported SLA guide. The mean deviations in linear distance between the planned and placed implants at the neck and apex were 1.00 ±0.33 mm and 1.15 ±0.42 mm for the tooth-supported guides; 1.08 ±0.33 mm and 1.53 ±0.90 mm for the bone-supported guides; and 1.47 ±0.43 mm and 1.65 ±0.48 mm for the mucosa-supported SLA surgical guides. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study show that stereolithographic surgical guides may be reliable in implant placement and that: 1) there was no statistically significant difference among the 3 types of guide when comparing angular deviation and 2) mucosa-supported guides were less accurate than both tooth-supported and bone-supported guides for linear deviation at the implant neck and apex.

[1]  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.

[2]  M. Chiapasco,et al.  Failures in jaw reconstructive surgery with autogenous onlay bone grafts for pre-implant purposes: incidence, prevention and management of complications. , 2011, Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America.

[3]  George A Zarb,et al.  Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant-fixed prostheses: the Toronto study. , 2004, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[4]  Sérgio J Jayme,et al.  Optimization in multi-implant placement for immediate loading in edentulous arches using a modified surgical template and prototyping: a case report. , 2008, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  T. Jemt,et al.  Implant treatment with fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part 2: prosthetic technique and clinical maintenance in two patient cohorts restored between 1986 and 1987 and 15 years later. , 2011, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[6]  Chengtao Wang,et al.  Modular preoperative planning software for computer-aided oral implantology and the application of a novel stereolithographic template: a pilot study. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[7]  I. Turkyilmaz,et al.  Early versus delayed loading of mandibular implant-supported overdentures: 5-year results. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[8]  Predrag Sukovic,et al.  Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  G. Schiroli,et al.  Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[10]  Erwin Keeve,et al.  Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. , 2007, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[11]  E. Machtei,et al.  Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  Patricia R Cury,et al.  Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. , 2005, Journal of periodontology.

[13]  E. Romeo,et al.  Rehabilitation of a dentate mandible requiring a full arch rehabilitation. Immediate loading of a fixed complete denture on 8 implants placed with a bone-supported surgical computer-planned guide: a case report. , 2011, The Journal of oral implantology.

[14]  P. Branemark,et al.  Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  Saad A Al-Harbi,et al.  Implant Placement Accuracy When Using Stereolithographic Template as a Surgical Guide: Preliminary Results , 2009, Implant dentistry.

[16]  Kunal Lal,et al.  Use of stereolithographic templates for surgical and prosthodontic implant planning and placement. Part I. The concept. , 2006, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[17]  Ilser Turkyilmaz,et al.  Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. , 2008, Journal of periodontology.

[18]  Abbas Azari,et al.  A novel stereolithographic surgical guide template for planning treatment involving a mandibular dental implant. , 2008, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[19]  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.

[20]  Regina Mericske-Stern,et al.  Prosthetically driven, computer-guided implant planning for the edentulous maxilla: a model study. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[21]  S. Rosenstiel,et al.  Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. , 2009, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[22]  I. Turkyilmaz.  26-year follow-up of screw-retained fixed dental prostheses supported by machined-surface Brånemark implants: a case report. , 2011, Texas dental journal.

[23]  R. Levine,et al.  Team treatment planning for the replacement of esthetic zone teeth with dental implants. , 2011, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry.

[24]  R Jacobs,et al.  Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. , 2007, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[25]  Konstantinos X Michalakis,et al.  Immediately loaded maxillary and mandibular dental implants with fixed CAD/CAM prostheses using a flapless surgical approach: a clinical report. , 2011, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[26]  Thomas J Balshi,et al.  Guided Implant Placement and Immediate Prosthesis Delivery Using Traditional Brånemark System Abutments: A Pilot Study of 23 Patients , 2008, Implant dentistry.