Accuracy of digital workflow for placing orthodontic miniscrews using generic and licensed open systems. A 3d imaging analysis of non-native .stl files for guided protocols

Abstract

Background This study aimed to assess the accuracy of digital workflow for guided insertion of miniscrews in the anterior palate using restorative implant dentistry software and licensed software for orthodontic applications. Methods Twenty subjects (8 males, 12 females, mean age = 16.7 ± 2.1 years) were prospectively selected to receive guided insertion of bicortical palatal miniscrews. Virtual planning was performed using restorative implant dentistry software (Blue Sky Plan*, version 4.7) (group 1 = 10 subjects) and licensed orthodontic software (Dolphin Imaging Software, version 11.0) (group 2 = 10 subjects). A specific 3D Imaging technology was applied to permit the registration of the planned and achieved position of the miniscrews based on the superimposition of maxillary models. The angular deviation (accuracy error) between the planned and the achieved positions of the miniscrews were recorded. Independent Student’s test was used with statistical significance set at p value < 0.05. Results The mean accuracy error recorded in group 1 was 7.15° ± 1.09 (right side) and 6.19 ± 0.80 (left side) while the mean error in group 2 was 6.74° ± 1.23 (right side) and 5.79 ± 0.95 (left side). No significant differences were recorded between the two groups (p > 0.05); instead, miniscrews placed on the right side were almost one degree higher than the left side (p < 0.05) in both groups. Conclusions The clinical accuracy error was similar when using generic and licensed orthodontic software for guided systems.

Dental implant survival in epidermolysis bullosa patients: A systematic review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions

“…All patients surveyed reported improved chewing after implant rehabilitation, claiming to chew solid foods. However, the implant failure rate in the studies is about 1.3% on average [ [54] , [55] , [56] ]. The implant failures occurred early or during the second surgery (primary failures).…”

Mini-Implant Insertion Using a Guide Manufactured with Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing in an Adolescent Patient Suffering from Tooth Eruption Disturbance

“…In such cases, three-dimensional medical imaging technologies, e.g., cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) [22], in combination with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technologies, present a feasible solution for the digital planning of mini-implant insertion. This approach enables us to determine the optimal position, angulation, and lengths of mini-implants pre-surgically, thus enabling a risk-free and individually skeletal anchorage [23]. This planning can be transferred into the clinical situation using a completely CAD/CAM designed and CAD/CAM manufactured drilling template [24], aiming to decrease the risks of potential complications during surgery while increasing the stability and efficiency of the mini-implants.…”

Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

“…Another primary concern with improper osteotomy is the damage inflicted on critical anatomical structures, which may lead to long-term complications [13,14]. The use of advanced planning software and prototyping techniques has facilitated the introduction of the concept of computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), which includes digital pre-surgical planning and guided surgical procedures [10,15]. CAIS is classified into two types: (a) static computer-assisted implant surgery (SCAIS) and (b) dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (DCAIS) [16][17][18][19].…”