IADR Abstract Archives
Comparing Implant placement accuracy: Surgical guides versus dynamic navigation
Objectives: This in-vitro study aims to compare implantation accuracy among three techniques in metal artifacts conditions including guided implant by conventional method, guided implant by radiopaque impression method, and dynamic navigation aided technique.
Methods: An ideal placement of an implant in the edentulous area of the left central incisor was virtually designed by EXOCAD and 3D printed. The implant Active 4.3mm*13mm (Nobel Biocare) placement was guided by three techniques: Group A-surgical templates by conventional method; Group B-surgical templates by radiopaque impression method and Group C-dynamic navigation X-Guide (Nobel Biocare). Scanbodies were positioned onto each implant for digital scanning to get post-surgical implant positions. Evaluated by measuring 3D spatial deviation from the ideal virtual implant positions, including parameters (i) deviation at neck, (ii) deviation at apex, (iii) 3D angular deviation and (iv) vertical deviation in depth. Differences among groups were tested using One-way ANOVA, following by a post-hoc test with a significant level p<0.05.
Results: Thirty implants in total with ten used for each technique. The accuracy of implant position was significantly different among three groups (p < 0.05). For multiple comparison, Group C showed a significantly lower angular deviation than Group A and B (p = 0.003 and 0.002). Group B exhibited a significantly lower depth deviation compared to other two groups (p = 0.027 and 0.001). A significantly lower alignment error at the implant apex was found in Group B and C as compared to Group A (p = 0.027 and 0.001). Group B showed a significantly lower deviation at implant neck compared to Group C (p = 0.005).
Conclusions: Dynamic navigation and the radiopaque impression method demonstrated enhanced accuracy in certain implant placement parameters compared to the conventional-based surgical guide technique in artifacts conditions.
Methods: An ideal placement of an implant in the edentulous area of the left central incisor was virtually designed by EXOCAD and 3D printed. The implant Active 4.3mm*13mm (Nobel Biocare) placement was guided by three techniques: Group A-surgical templates by conventional method; Group B-surgical templates by radiopaque impression method and Group C-dynamic navigation X-Guide (Nobel Biocare). Scanbodies were positioned onto each implant for digital scanning to get post-surgical implant positions. Evaluated by measuring 3D spatial deviation from the ideal virtual implant positions, including parameters (i) deviation at neck, (ii) deviation at apex, (iii) 3D angular deviation and (iv) vertical deviation in depth. Differences among groups were tested using One-way ANOVA, following by a post-hoc test with a significant level p<0.05.
Results: Thirty implants in total with ten used for each technique. The accuracy of implant position was significantly different among three groups (p < 0.05). For multiple comparison, Group C showed a significantly lower angular deviation than Group A and B (p = 0.003 and 0.002). Group B exhibited a significantly lower depth deviation compared to other two groups (p = 0.027 and 0.001). A significantly lower alignment error at the implant apex was found in Group B and C as compared to Group A (p = 0.027 and 0.001). Group B showed a significantly lower deviation at implant neck compared to Group C (p = 0.005).
Conclusions: Dynamic navigation and the radiopaque impression method demonstrated enhanced accuracy in certain implant placement parameters compared to the conventional-based surgical guide technique in artifacts conditions.