A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer‐assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites
Aim The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the accuracy of static Computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) in posterior single edentulous patients using different surgical guide designs. Materials and Methods Thirty‐seven partially edentulous patients with a total of 54 implant...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2022-01, Vol.33 (1), p.45-52 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 52 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 45 |
| container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | De Souza, Andre Barbisan Kang, Michael Negreiros, William Matthew El‐Rafie, Khaled Finkelman, Matthew Papaspyridakos, Panos |
| description | Aim
The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the accuracy of static Computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) in posterior single edentulous patients using different surgical guide designs.
Materials and Methods
Thirty‐seven partially edentulous patients with a total of 54 implants were included in the study. Seventeen implants were included in Group 1—Unbounded Tooth‐Mucosa Supported; 18 implants in Group 2—Unbounded Tooth Supported; and 19 implants in Group 3 (Control)—Bounded Tooth Supported. All partially edentulous patients were treated with fully guided implant surgery using the corresponding surgical guide. Discrepancies between the pre‐planned and post‐operative implant position were evaluated.
Results
The mean angular deviation ± standard deviation (SD) was 2.91 ± 1.56°, 3.33 ± 1.72° and 2.25 ± 1.13° for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean ± SD 3D offset at base was 0.66 ± 0.29 mm, 0.77 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.49 ± 0.22 mm; and 3D offset at tip was 0.84 ± 0.45 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.75 ± 0.25 mm for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No statistically significant differences between groups were found for angular deviation. There were statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 3 for 3D offset at base (p = .002) and 3D offset at tip (p = .010).
Conclusions
Different surgical guide designs for posterior single edentulous areas appear to be associated with the accuracy level of sCAIS. In unbounded sites, having additional posterior attached soft tissue support is preferable. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.13858 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2578150087</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2578150087</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-fa5b195ec8c27168d27336f53aa8628a5b1980d910a9ebbdf5b4abe4004a24103</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9qGzEQh0VpaVy3h75AEfTSHDYZrVZr7TGYJA0YCqU9C600Mgr7L9Iqwbc8Qq59vTxJFdvtoVBdhDSfPkbzI-QjgzOW17npwhnjUshXZMFqgAIEsNdkAQ2IYsVqdkLexXgLAHUjm7fkhFdCrngJC_Lrgpqxn3TQs79HGnAOY5zQ7E9xTnZHR0etdw4DDjONKWy90R3dJm-RWox-O0TqxpDp7DB7XZoxPD8-6Rh9nNFS30-dPr7GsKN-oNOYK8G_vPPDtkOKNvtTN6aYb2aM78kbp7uIH477kvy8uvyx_lpsvl3frC82heGCy8Jp0bJGoJGmzF-VtlxxXjvBtZZ1KfdVCbZhoBtsW-tEW-kWK4BKlxUDviRfDt4pjHcJ46x6Hw12uWHMzahSrCQTAHlgS_L5H_R2TGHI3amyZpLxGliVqdMDZfIoY0CnpuB7HXaKgXrJS-W81D6vzH46GlPbo_1L_gkoA-cH4MF3uPu_Sa033w_K31ALo-M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2618136014</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer‐assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>De Souza, Andre Barbisan ; Kang, Michael ; Negreiros, William Matthew ; El‐Rafie, Khaled ; Finkelman, Matthew ; Papaspyridakos, Panos</creator><creatorcontrib>De Souza, Andre Barbisan ; Kang, Michael ; Negreiros, William Matthew ; El‐Rafie, Khaled ; Finkelman, Matthew ; Papaspyridakos, Panos</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the accuracy of static Computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) in posterior single edentulous patients using different surgical guide designs.
Materials and Methods
Thirty‐seven partially edentulous patients with a total of 54 implants were included in the study. Seventeen implants were included in Group 1—Unbounded Tooth‐Mucosa Supported; 18 implants in Group 2—Unbounded Tooth Supported; and 19 implants in Group 3 (Control)—Bounded Tooth Supported. All partially edentulous patients were treated with fully guided implant surgery using the corresponding surgical guide. Discrepancies between the pre‐planned and post‐operative implant position were evaluated.
Results
The mean angular deviation ± standard deviation (SD) was 2.91 ± 1.56°, 3.33 ± 1.72° and 2.25 ± 1.13° for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean ± SD 3D offset at base was 0.66 ± 0.29 mm, 0.77 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.49 ± 0.22 mm; and 3D offset at tip was 0.84 ± 0.45 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.75 ± 0.25 mm for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No statistically significant differences between groups were found for angular deviation. There were statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 3 for 3D offset at base (p = .002) and 3D offset at tip (p = .010).
Conclusions
Different surgical guide designs for posterior single edentulous areas appear to be associated with the accuracy level of sCAIS. In unbounded sites, having additional posterior attached soft tissue support is preferable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.13858</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34587320</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>accuracy of implant position ; CAD/CAM surgical guide ; Computer-Aided Design ; Computers ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; dental implant ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; Dental Implants ; Edentulous ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Implants ; Mucosa ; Patients ; Retrospective Studies ; Soft tissues ; static computer‐assisted implant surgery ; Statistical analysis ; Surgery ; Surgery, Computer-Assisted ; Surgical equipment ; Surgical instruments ; Teeth ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2022-01, Vol.33 (1), p.45-52</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-fa5b195ec8c27168d27336f53aa8628a5b1980d910a9ebbdf5b4abe4004a24103</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-fa5b195ec8c27168d27336f53aa8628a5b1980d910a9ebbdf5b4abe4004a24103</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3835-7262</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.13858$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.13858$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34587320$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>De Souza, Andre Barbisan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Negreiros, William Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El‐Rafie, Khaled</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finkelman, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papaspyridakos, Panos</creatorcontrib><title>A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer‐assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><description>Aim
The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the accuracy of static Computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) in posterior single edentulous patients using different surgical guide designs.
Materials and Methods
Thirty‐seven partially edentulous patients with a total of 54 implants were included in the study. Seventeen implants were included in Group 1—Unbounded Tooth‐Mucosa Supported; 18 implants in Group 2—Unbounded Tooth Supported; and 19 implants in Group 3 (Control)—Bounded Tooth Supported. All partially edentulous patients were treated with fully guided implant surgery using the corresponding surgical guide. Discrepancies between the pre‐planned and post‐operative implant position were evaluated.
Results
The mean angular deviation ± standard deviation (SD) was 2.91 ± 1.56°, 3.33 ± 1.72° and 2.25 ± 1.13° for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean ± SD 3D offset at base was 0.66 ± 0.29 mm, 0.77 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.49 ± 0.22 mm; and 3D offset at tip was 0.84 ± 0.45 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.75 ± 0.25 mm for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No statistically significant differences between groups were found for angular deviation. There were statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 3 for 3D offset at base (p = .002) and 3D offset at tip (p = .010).
Conclusions
Different surgical guide designs for posterior single edentulous areas appear to be associated with the accuracy level of sCAIS. In unbounded sites, having additional posterior attached soft tissue support is preferable.</description><subject>accuracy of implant position</subject><subject>CAD/CAM surgical guide</subject><subject>Computer-Aided Design</subject><subject>Computers</subject><subject>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</subject><subject>dental implant</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Edentulous</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</subject><subject>Implants</subject><subject>Mucosa</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Soft tissues</subject><subject>static computer‐assisted implant surgery</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgery, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Surgical equipment</subject><subject>Surgical instruments</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9qGzEQh0VpaVy3h75AEfTSHDYZrVZr7TGYJA0YCqU9C600Mgr7L9Iqwbc8Qq59vTxJFdvtoVBdhDSfPkbzI-QjgzOW17npwhnjUshXZMFqgAIEsNdkAQ2IYsVqdkLexXgLAHUjm7fkhFdCrngJC_Lrgpqxn3TQs79HGnAOY5zQ7E9xTnZHR0etdw4DDjONKWy90R3dJm-RWox-O0TqxpDp7DB7XZoxPD8-6Rh9nNFS30-dPr7GsKN-oNOYK8G_vPPDtkOKNvtTN6aYb2aM78kbp7uIH477kvy8uvyx_lpsvl3frC82heGCy8Jp0bJGoJGmzF-VtlxxXjvBtZZ1KfdVCbZhoBtsW-tEW-kWK4BKlxUDviRfDt4pjHcJ46x6Hw12uWHMzahSrCQTAHlgS_L5H_R2TGHI3amyZpLxGliVqdMDZfIoY0CnpuB7HXaKgXrJS-W81D6vzH46GlPbo_1L_gkoA-cH4MF3uPu_Sa033w_K31ALo-M</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>De Souza, Andre Barbisan</creator><creator>Kang, Michael</creator><creator>Negreiros, William Matthew</creator><creator>El‐Rafie, Khaled</creator><creator>Finkelman, Matthew</creator><creator>Papaspyridakos, Panos</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3835-7262</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer‐assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites</title><author>De Souza, Andre Barbisan ; Kang, Michael ; Negreiros, William Matthew ; El‐Rafie, Khaled ; Finkelman, Matthew ; Papaspyridakos, Panos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-fa5b195ec8c27168d27336f53aa8628a5b1980d910a9ebbdf5b4abe4004a24103</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>accuracy of implant position</topic><topic>CAD/CAM surgical guide</topic><topic>Computer-Aided Design</topic><topic>Computers</topic><topic>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography</topic><topic>dental implant</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Edentulous</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</topic><topic>Implants</topic><topic>Mucosa</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Soft tissues</topic><topic>static computer‐assisted implant surgery</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgery, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Surgical equipment</topic><topic>Surgical instruments</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>De Souza, Andre Barbisan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Negreiros, William Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El‐Rafie, Khaled</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finkelman, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papaspyridakos, Panos</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>De Souza, Andre Barbisan</au><au>Kang, Michael</au><au>Negreiros, William Matthew</au><au>El‐Rafie, Khaled</au><au>Finkelman, Matthew</au><au>Papaspyridakos, Panos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer‐assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>52</epage><pages>45-52</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Aim
The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the accuracy of static Computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) in posterior single edentulous patients using different surgical guide designs.
Materials and Methods
Thirty‐seven partially edentulous patients with a total of 54 implants were included in the study. Seventeen implants were included in Group 1—Unbounded Tooth‐Mucosa Supported; 18 implants in Group 2—Unbounded Tooth Supported; and 19 implants in Group 3 (Control)—Bounded Tooth Supported. All partially edentulous patients were treated with fully guided implant surgery using the corresponding surgical guide. Discrepancies between the pre‐planned and post‐operative implant position were evaluated.
Results
The mean angular deviation ± standard deviation (SD) was 2.91 ± 1.56°, 3.33 ± 1.72° and 2.25 ± 1.13° for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean ± SD 3D offset at base was 0.66 ± 0.29 mm, 0.77 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.49 ± 0.22 mm; and 3D offset at tip was 0.84 ± 0.45 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.75 ± 0.25 mm for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No statistically significant differences between groups were found for angular deviation. There were statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 3 for 3D offset at base (p = .002) and 3D offset at tip (p = .010).
Conclusions
Different surgical guide designs for posterior single edentulous areas appear to be associated with the accuracy level of sCAIS. In unbounded sites, having additional posterior attached soft tissue support is preferable.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>34587320</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.13858</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3835-7262</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2022-01, Vol.33 (1), p.45-52 |
| issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2578150087 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | accuracy of implant position CAD/CAM surgical guide Computer-Aided Design Computers Cone-Beam Computed Tomography dental implant Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implants Edentulous Humans Imaging, Three-Dimensional Implants Mucosa Patients Retrospective Studies Soft tissues static computer‐assisted implant surgery Statistical analysis Surgery Surgery, Computer-Assisted Surgical equipment Surgical instruments Teeth Transplants & implants |
| title | A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer‐assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T11%3A07%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparative%20retrospective%20study%20of%20different%20surgical%20guide%20designs%20for%20static%20computer%E2%80%90assisted%20implant%20surgery%20in%20posterior%20single%20edentulous%20sites&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=De%20Souza,%20Andre%20Barbisan&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=52&rft.pages=45-52&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.13858&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2578150087%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2618136014&rft_id=info:pmid/34587320&rfr_iscdi=true |