A technique for immediate implant placement in mandibular multirooted teeth by the aid of a dynamic guidance system and preparing implant bed before tooth extraction

Yan, Maode; Ou, Yongsheng; Liu, Ruimin; Jiang, Chen

doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2022.11.002

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most widely utilized MPR strategy when performing dental implant placement relies on the utilization of a U‐shaped tube device (Feng et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Wu, Ma, & Sun, 2023; Wu, Xue, et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023; Yan et al., 2023). Nevertheless, a novel approach has been devised wherein a dual‐purpose registration‐and‐fixation apparatus was developed, incorporating three reflecting patches (Wu & Sun, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impacts of registration‐and‐fixation device positioning on the performance of implant placement assisted by dynamic computer‐aided surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Wu,

Sun

2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of dynamic computer‐aided surgery (dCAS) in replacing a single missing posterior tooth, we compare outcomes when using registration‐and‐fixation devices positioned anterior or posterior to the surgical site. Registration is performed on either the anterior or opposite posterior teeth.MethodsForty individuals needing posterior single‐tooth implant placement were randomly assigned to anterior or posterior registration. Nine parameters were analyzed to detect the deviations between planned and actual implant placement, using Mann–Whitney and t‐tests for nonnormally and normally distributed data, respectively.ResultsThe overall average angular deviation for this study was 2.08 ± 1.12°, with the respective average 3D platform and apex deviations of 0.77 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.32 mm. Angular deviation values for individuals in the anterior and posterior registration groups were 1.58°(IQR: 0.98°–2.38°) and 2.25°(IQR: 1.46°–3.43°), respectively (p = .165), with 3D platform deviations of 0.81 ± 0.29 mm and 0.74 ± 0.36 mm (p = .464), as well as 3D apex deviations of 0.89 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.33 mm (p = .986). No significant variations in absolute buccolingual (platform, p = .659; apex, p = .063), apicocoronal (platform, p = .671; apex, p = .649), or mesiodistal (platform, p = .134; apex, p = .355) deviations were observed at either analyzed levels.ConclusionsBoth anterior and posterior registration approaches facilitate accurate dCAS‐mediated implant placement for single missing posterior teeth. The device's placement (posterior‐to or anterior‐to the surgical site) did not affect the clinician's ability to achieve the planned implant location.

show abstract