Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2017 Jan;55(1):1-8. Korean.
    Published online Jan 25, 2017.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2017.55.1.1
    © 2017 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

    Accuracy of the CT guided implant template by using an intraoral scanner according to the edentulous distance

    Byeong-Gil Kang, Hee-Jung Kim and Chae-Heon Chung
      • Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Chae-Heon Chung. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, 303 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61452, Republic of Korea. +82 (0)62 220 3820, Email: jhajung@chosun.ac.kr
    Received July 19, 2016; Revised August 17, 2016; Accepted September 07, 2016.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of the CT guided implant template that was produced by using an intraoral scanner according to the edentulous distance.

    Materials and methods

    Five maxillary casts were fabricated using radiopaque acrylic resin with the second premolars, first molars, and second molars missing. Then a virtual cast was acquired by scanning each resin cast. Implant treatment was planned on the missing sites by superimposing the presurgical CT DICOM file and the virtual cast. Then the implants were placed using a surgical template followed by postsurgical CT scan. The distance and angle of the platform and apex between the presurgical implant and postsurgical implant were measured using the X, Y, and Z axis of the superimposed presurgical CT and postsurgical CT via software followed by statistical analysis using Kruskall-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test.

    Results

    The implant placement angle error increased towards the second molars but there was no statistically significant difference. The implant placement distance error at the platform and apex also increased towards the second molars and there was a statistically significant error at the second molars.

    Conclusion

    Although the placement angle had no statistically significant difference between the presurgical implant and postsurgical implant, the placement distance at the platform and apex showed a larger error and a statistically significant difference at the second molar implant.

    Keywords
    CAD/CAM; Digital scan; Guided surgery

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Resin model and implant uesd in this study. (A) Resin model made by VisiJet M3 Stoneplast (3DSYSTEMS), (B) TS III SA (Osstem. Co.).

    Fig. 2
    (A) Pre-surgical cone beam-CT image, (B) Scan image.

    Fig. 3
    Planning and insertion of implant. (A) Planning on position and angulation of the implant, (B) CT guided implant template, (C) Drilling through the implant template with a drill, (D) Post-surgical cone beam-CT image.

    Fig. 4
    Superimposition of presurgical and postsurgical CBCT scans.

    Fig. 5
    Deviation between virtually planned and actually placed implant. (A) Center of prosthetic platform of implant, and apex refers to center of tip of implant, (B) Deviation between virtually planned and actually placed implant is illustrated for platform, apex, and angulation.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Variation of platform of implant

    Table 2
    Variation of apex of implant

    Table 3
    Variation of angulation of implant

    Notes

    ※This study was supported by research fund from Chosun University, 2015.

    References

      1. Park C, Raigrodski AJ, Rosen J, Spiekerman C, London RM. Accuracy of implant placement using precision surgical guides with varying occlusogingival heights: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:372–381.
      1. Noharet R, Pettersson A, Bourgeois D. Accuracy of implant placement in the posterior maxilla as related to 2 types of surgical guides: a pilot study in the human cadaver. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:526–532.
      1. Sclar AG. Guidelines for flapless surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:20–32.
      1. Ganz SD. Presurgical planning with CT-derived fabrication of surgical guides. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:59–71.
      1. Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1201–1208.
      1. Reyes A, Turkyilmaz I, Prihoda TJ. Accuracy of surgical guides made from conventional and a combination of digital scanning and rapid prototyping techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:295–303.
      1. Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108:181–188.
      1. van Steenberghe D, Naert I, Andersson M, Brajnovic I, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Suetens P. A custom template and definitive prosthesis allowing immediate implant loading in the maxilla: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:663–670.
      1. Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, Jacobs R. Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional conebeam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 2007;34:816–821.
      1. Villa R. A technique for the presurgical simulation of the position of computer-assisted, template-based, planned implants: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1030–1034.
      1. Di Giacomo GA, Cury PR, de Araujo NS, Sendyk WR, Sendyk CL. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol 2005;76:503–507.
      1. Pettersson A, Kero T, Gillot L, Cannas B, Fäldt J, Söderberg R, Näsström K. Accuracy of CAD/CAM-guided surgical template implant surgery on human cadavers: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:334–342.
      1. Ruppin J, Popovic A, Strauss M, Spüntrup E, Steiner A, Stoll C. Evaluation of the accuracy of three different computer-aided surgery systems in dental implantology: optical tracking vs. stereolithographic splint systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:709–716.
      1. Jeong SM, Fang JW, Hwang CH, Kang SH, Choi BH, Fang Y, Jeon H, An S. Accuracy assessment of implant placement using a stereolithographic surgical guide made with digital scan. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2015;53:111–119.
      1. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186–194.
    MeSH Terms
    Bicuspid
    Molar
    Tomography, X-Ray Computed
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 5

    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    PERMALINK