An accuracy study of computer-planned implant placement in the augmented maxilla using osteosynthesis screws

A randomized controlled study on the accuracy of free‐handed, pilot‐drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients

“…The correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of an implant is considered a prerequisite for an optimal aesthetic outcome (Buser, Martin, & Belser, 2004;Ruppin et al, 2008;Tahmaseb, Wismeijer, Coucke, & Derksen, 2014). One possible tool that may facilitate a more accurate implant positioning is guided implant surgery (Arisan, Karabuda, & Ozdemir, 2010;Tahmaseb et al, 2014;Valente, Schiroli, & Sbrenna, 2009;Van Assche, van Steenberghe, Quirynen, & Jacobs, 2010;Verhamme et al, 2017). Apart from aesthetics, a correct implant position may reduce biological and/or technical complications (Canullo et al, 2016;Cassetta, Giansanti, Di Mambro, & Stefanelli, 2014;Jacobs, Adriansens, Verstreken, Suetens, & van Steenberghe, 1999;Vercruyssen, Jacobs, Van Assche, & van Steenberghe, 2008).…”

“…Apart from aesthetics, a correct implant position may reduce biological and/or technical complications (Canullo et al, 2016;Cassetta, Giansanti, Di Mambro, & Stefanelli, 2014;Jacobs, Adriansens, Verstreken, Suetens, & van Steenberghe, 1999;Vercruyssen, Jacobs, Van Assche, & van Steenberghe, 2008). One possible tool that may facilitate a more accurate implant positioning is guided implant surgery (Arisan, Karabuda, & Ozdemir, 2010;Tahmaseb et al, 2014;Valente, Schiroli, & Sbrenna, 2009;Van Assche, van Steenberghe, Quirynen, & Jacobs, 2010;Verhamme et al, 2017).…”

Advantages and limitations of implant surgery with CAD/CAM surgical guides: A literature review

“…At this stage, a total of 6 articles were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria of the present review due to overlapping patient population (36), type of intervention (37) simulated surgery design (38,39), in vitro study (25) and human cadaver study (40). The following data were extracted from the 9 eligible studies (22)(23)(24)(26)(27)(28)(29)34,35) that were accepted for inclusion: authors, year of publication, study design, type of CAD/CAM guide utilized, number and types of implants placed, angular deviations in degrees, and linear deviations at implant neck and implant apex in millimeter (mm). Table 1 depicts the detailed information of those publications.…”

“…In clinical studies indicated that the mean angular deviation, and the linear deviations at implant neck and apex were up to 5.01 ± 0.2 °, 2.05 ± 0.74 mm, and 2.28 ± 0.27 mm respectively (22)(23)(24)(26)(27)(28)(29)34,35). When compared to in vitro studies, the greater errors were reported in the clinical studies.…”

“…It is important to note that there is no perfect computer-guided surgical method at this moment. Because, several studies have already indicated some degrees of angular, vertical and horizontal deviations from the digital plan to the actual surgery (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35). It should be kept in mind that greater deviations and major complications such as nerve injury may be caused by untrained and novice clinicians (30,31).…”