Accuracy Comparison of Guided Implant Placement Between Tooth and Mucosal Supported Stereolithographic Models in the Maxillary Arch. (An experimental study)

Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 2025 , Pages 12-18

Authors

Mohammed Mohammed Rasheed 1 ; Bayad Mahmood 1

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq

DOI logo 10.17656/sdj.10200

Keywords

Abstract

Objective: Employing stereolithographic surgical guides is highly beneficial for enhancing and analyzing implant position accuracy. This study aimed to differentiate between the accuracy of implant position with two different models employing guided surgery based on the support level (tooth-mucosa).

Methods: A total of 80 implants were virtually planned and surgically positioned on twenty maxillary dental arches utilizing two distinct stereolithographic models (40 using tissue and 40 using tooth supported surgical guides). Four virtual implants were planned for each dental arch in the implant planning software. Accuracy measurement was made possible by matching process within the software between virtually planned and actually positioned implants, utilizing radiographic markers in the maxillary arch as matching points. Measuring was carried out at the center of the implant hexagon, apex and angle deviations.

Results: The overall difference between tooth- and mucosa-supported surgical models for angular and apical deviations was not statistically significant except for hexagonal deviation, which showed (P <0.001), where the mean distance deviations at the hexagons and apices level showed 1.24 ± 0.38 mm and 1.22 ± 0.51 mm for the guides supported by teeth, and 1.83 ±1.09 mm and 1.24 ±0.69 mm for the guides supported by mucosa. The angular deviation for tooth- and mucosa-supported guides measured 4.38 ± 3.22 and 3.9 ±2.61 degrees, respectively.

Conclusions: Based on this study’s results, it is concluded that there is a correlation between implant placement accuracy and the type of surgical guide support. Specifically, surgical guides supported by mucosa showed lower accuracy at the hexagon level compared to those supported by tooth structures. The resiliency of the mucosa may influence implant placement accuracy and subsequent prosthetic plan.

References

  1. Ramasamy M, Giri null, Raja R, Subramonian null, Karthik null, Narendrakumar R. Implant surgical guides: from the past to the present. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2013;5(Suppl 1):S98-102.
  2. Widmann G, Bale RJ. Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery--a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(2):305-13.
  3. Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clinical Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(4):416-23.
  4. Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontology 2000. 2017;73(1):84-102.
  5. Van Assche N, Quirynen M. Tolerance within a surgical guide. Clinical Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(4):455-8.
  6. Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(Suppl 11):69-76.
  7. Gjelvold B, Mahmood DJH, Wennerberg A. Accuracy of surgical guides from 2 different desktop 3D printers for computed tomography-guided surgery. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(3):498-503.
  8. Becker CM, Kaiser DA. Surgical guide for dental implant placement. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(2):248-51.
  9. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):25-42.
  10. Vercruyssen M, Hultin M, Van Assche N, Svensson K, Naert I, Quirynen M. Guided surgery: accuracy and efficacy. Periodontology 2000. 2014;66(1):228-46.
  11. Sicilia A, Botticelli D; Working Group 3. Computer-guided implant therapy and soft- and hard-tissue aspects. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):157-61.
  12. Hama DR, Mahmood BJ. Comparison of accuracy between free-hand and surgical guide implant placement among experienced and non-experienced dental implant practitioners: an in vitro study. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2023;53(5):388-401.
  13. Brief J, Edinger D, Hassfeld S, Eggers G. Accuracy of image-guided implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(4):495-501.
  14. Takeshita F, Suetsugu T. Accurate presurgical determination for implant placement by using computerized tomography scan. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76(6):590-1.
  15. Shi Y, Wang J, Ma C, Shen J, Dong X, Lin D. A systematic review of the accuracy of digital surgical guides for dental implantation. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):38.
  16. Ali TT, Othman KS. Retention evaluation of implant-supported mandibular overdenture using two different attachment systems: an in vitro study. Sulaimani Dent J. 2023;10(3):13-23.
  17. Sarhan MM, Khamis MM, El-Sharkawy AM. Evaluation of the accuracy of implant placement by using fully guided versus partially guided tissue-supported surgical guides with cylindrical versus C-shaped guiding holes: A split-mouth clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(4):620-7.
  18. Rinaldi M, Ganz SD. Computer-guided approach for placement of zygomatic implants: novel protocol and surgical guide. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2019;40(3):e1-4.
  19. Deeb GR, Allen RK, Hall VP, Whitley D, Laskin DM, Bencharit S. How accurate are implant surgical guides produced with desktop stereolithographic 3-dimentional printers? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(12):2559.e1-2559.e8.
  20. Bell CK, Sahl EF, Kim YJ, Rice DD. Accuracy of implants placed with surgical guides: thermoplastic versus 3d printed. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018;38(1):113–9.
  21. Ersoy AE, Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, McGlumphy EA. Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. J Periodontol. 2008;79(8):1339-45.
  22. Henprasert P, Dawson DV, El-Kerdani T, Song X, Couso-Queiruga E, Holloway JA. Comparison of the accuracy of implant position using surgical guides fabricated by additive and subtractive techniques. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(6):534-41.
  23. Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(1):101-15.
  24. Zhou W, Liu Z, Song L, Kuo CL, Shafer DM. Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of guided implant surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018;18(1):28-40.
  25. Cushen SE, Turkyilmaz I. Impact of operator experience on the accuracy of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical templates: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(4):248-54.
  26. Marei HF, Abdel-Hady A, Al-Khalifa K, Al-Mahalawy H. Influence of surgeon experience on the accuracy of implant placement via a partially computer-guided surgical protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(5):1177-83.
  27. Tan PLB, Layton DM, Wise SL. In vitro comparison of guided versus freehand implant placement: use of a new combined TRIOS surface scanning, Implant Studio, CBCT, and stereolithographic virtually planned and guided technique. Int J Comput Dent. 2018;21(2):87-95.
  28. Skjerven H, Riis UH, Herlofsson BB, Ellingsen JE. In vivo accuracy of implant placement using a full digital planning modality and stereolithographic guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(1):124-32.
  29. Soares MM, Harari ND, Cardoso ES, Manso MC, Conz MB, Vidigal GM. An in vitro model to evaluate the accuracy of guided surgery systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(4):824-31.
  30. Vermeulen J. The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(3):617-24.
Statistics
  • Article view1271
  • Downloads18
  • Published at1 April 2025

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver