Computer‐assisted bone augmentation, implant planning and placement: An in vitro investigation

Abstract

Aim To assess in vitro the workflow for alveolar ridge augmentation with customised 3D printed block grafts and simultaneous computer‐assisted implant planning and placement. Methods Twenty resin mandible models with an edentulous area and horizontal ridge defect in the region 34–36 were scanned with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). A block graft for horizontal ridge augmentation in the region 34–36 and an implant in the position 35 were digitally planned. Twenty block grafts were 3D printed out of resin and one template for guided implant placement were stereolithographically produced. The resin block grafts were positioned onto the ridge defects and stabilised with two fixation screws each. Subsequently, one implant was inserted in the position 35 through the corresponding template for guided implant placement. Optical scans of the study models together with the fixated block graft were performed prior to and after implant placement. The scans taken after block grafting were superimposed with the virtual block grafting plan through a best‐fit algorithm, and the linear deviation between the planned and the achieved block positions was calculated. The precision of the block fixation was obtained by superimposing the 20 scans taken after grafting and calculating the deviation between the corresponding resin blocks. The superimposition between the scans taken after and prior to implant placement was performed to measure a possible displacement in the block position induced by guided implant placement. The (98–2%)/2 percentile value was determined as a parameter for surface deviation. Results The mean deviation in the position of the block graft compared to the virtual plan amounted to 0.79 ± 0.13 mm. The mean deviation between the positions of the 20 block grafts measured 0.47 ± 0.2 mm, indicating a clinically acceptable precision. Guided implant placement induced a mean shift of 0.16 ± 0.06 mm in the position of the block graft. Conclusions Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that customised block grafts fabricated through CBCT, computer‐assisted design and 3D printing allow alveolar ridge augmentation with clinically acceptable predictability and reproducibility. Computer‐assisted implant planning and placement can be performed simultaneously with computer‐assisted block grafting leading to clinically non‐relevant dislocation of block grafts.