Accuracy of keyless vs drill-key implant systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery using two guide-hole designs compared to freehand implant placement: an in vitro study

International Journal of Implant Dentistry

Research

Tabea S. Schuetz¹  Vivianne Chappuis¹  Emilio Couso-Queiruga¹  Clemens Raabe¹  Samir Abou-Ayash²  Burak Yilmaz³ 

[1] Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, OH, USA;

关键词: Dental implants;    Single tooth;    Clinical decision-making;    Image-guided surgery;    Tooth extraction;    Alveolar ridge;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40729-023-00470-6

 received in 2022-11-16, accepted in 2023-01-31,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

PurposeThis in vitro study aimed at comparing the accuracy of freehand implant placement with static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS), utilizing a keyless and a drill-key implant system and two guide-hole designs.MethodsA total of 108 implants were placed in 18 partially edentulous maxillary models simulating two different alveolar ridge morphologies. 3D digital deviations between pre-planned and post-operative implant positions were obtained. Guide material reduction was assessed in the keyless implant system for the manufacturer’s sleeve and sleeveless guide-hole designs.ResultssCAIS using a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated smaller mean angular, crestal and apical deviations compared to sCAIS utilizing a manufacturer’s sleeve and the freehand group (2.6 ± 1.6°, vs 3.3 ± 1.9°, vs 4.0 ± 1.9°; 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.8 ± 0.3 mm; and 1.0 ± 0.5 mm, vs 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, vs 1.5 ± 0.6 mm). Smaller angular and apical mean deviations were observed in the keyless implant system as compared with the drill-key implant system (3.1 ± 1.7°, vs 3.5 ± 1.9°, p = 0.03; and 1.2 ± 0.6 mm, vs 1.4 ± 0.7 mm, p = 0.045). Overall, smaller angular, crestal, and apical deviations (p < 0.0001) were observed in healed alveolar ridges (2.4 ± 1.7°, 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.9 ± 0.5 mm) than in extraction sockets (4.2 ± 1.6°, 0.8 ± 0.3 mm, and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm). Higher mean volumetric material reduction was observed in sleeveless than in manufacturer’s sleeve guide-holes (− 0.10 ± 0.15 mm3, vs − 0.03 ± 0.03 mm3, p = 0.006).ConclusionsHigher final implant positional accuracy was observed in sCAIS for the keyless implant system, with a sleeveless guide-hole design, and in healed ridges. Sleeveless guide holes resulted in higher volumetric material reduction compared with the manufacturer’s sleeve.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig.1

13690_2023_1046_Article_IEq6.gif

Fig. 2

12936_2023_4470_Article_IEq1.gif