Exploring Effectiveness of Computer-Aided Planning in Implant Positioning for a Single Immediate Implant Placement

Edelmann, Alexander R.; Hosseini, Bashir; Byrd, Warren C.; Preisser, John S.; Tyndall, Donald A.; Nguyen, Tung; Bencharit, Sompop

doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-15-00056

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The maxillary anterior region of interest, area approximate to the maxillary right central incisor was isolated. [25,26,28] The final mesh model was exported as a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file for final optimization before assembled in the FEA.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of a one-piece zirconia implant in anterior single tooth implant applications

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the von Mises stress (MPa) and equivalent strain occurring around monolithic yttria-zirconia (Zir) implant using three clinically simulated finite element analysis (FEA) models for a missing maxillary central incisor. Two unidentified patients' cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) datasets with and without right maxillary central incisor were used to create the FEA models. Three different FEA models were made with bone structures that represent a healed socket (HS), reduced bone width edentulous site (RB), and immediate extraction socket with graft (EG). A one-piece abutment-implant fixture mimicking Straumann Standard Plus tissue level RN 4.1 X 11.8mm, for titanium alloy (Ti) and Zir were modeled. 178 N oblique load and 200 N vertical load were used to simulate occlusal loading. Von Mises stress and equivalent strain values for around each implant model were measured. Within the HS and RB models the labial-cervical region in the cortical bone exhibited highest stress, with Zir having statistically significant lower stress-strain means than Ti in both labial and palatal aspects. For the EG model the labial-cervical area had no statistically significant difference between Ti and Zir; however, Zir performed better than Ti against the graft. FEA models suggest that Ti, a more elastic material than Zir, contributes to the transduction of more overall forces to the socket compared to Zir. Thus, compared to Ti implants, Zir implants may be less prone to peri-implant bone overloading and subsequent bone loss in high stress areas especially in the labial-cervical region of the cortical bone. Zir implants respond to occlusal loading differently than Ti implants. Zir implants may be more favorable in non-grafted edentulous or immediate extraction with grafting.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite element analysis of a one-piece zirconia implant in anterior single tooth implant applications

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Virtual implant treatment planning using intraoral scanning or dental cast scanning and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) together with in-office stereolithographic 3D printers have recently modernized dental implant therapy. 1 Current commercially available implant treatment planning software optimizes implant positioning 2 and enhances implant placement accuracy through fabrication of an implant guide and its use in guided implant surgery. 3,4 The introduction of inex-pensive high precision 3D printing expands the application of guided implant surgery by making the guide more affordable to more practitioners.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open‐Source Software: An In Vitro Study

Talmazov

Bencharit

Waldrop

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement position using two different dental implant planning software. Materials and Methods A set of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files from a cone beam computed tomography of a patient missing maxillary right first premolar was used. Implant planning was done using two open‐source programs: A nondental 3D Slicer/Blender (3DSB) software and a commercial dental implant treatment planning program: Blue Sky Plan 4 (BSP4). An intraoral scan of the same patient was used to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file of the maxillary arch and later printed into 20 identical casts. Ten surgical guides were printed for each group as well. A dental implant (3.8 mm × 12 mm, Biohorizons) was placed into each cast using fully guided surgical protocol. The horizontal displacements at the implant cervical platform and at the implant apex as well as the angulation displacements were measured using digital scanning of the implant scan bodies and were analyzed using a 3D compare software. Statistical analyses were conducted (⍺ = 0.05) using t‐test and F‐test to examine differences in trueness and precision, respectively. Results The average horizontal deviations for the platform and the apex, respectively, were 0.33 ± 0.12 mm and 0.76 ± 0.30 mm for 3DSB and 0.44 ± 0.21 mm and 0.98 ± 0.48 mm for BSP4. The average angulation deviations for 3DSB and BSB4 were 2.34 ± 0.93° and 3.07 ± 1.57°, respectively. There were no statistical differences in the means (t‐test) of the platform, apex, and angulation deviations (p = 0.16, p = 0.19, and p = 0.18, respectively). There were statistical differences in the variances (F test) of the platform (p = 0.043) and angulation (p = 0.049) deviations but not the apex (p = 0.059) deviations. Conclusions The combination of nondental open‐source software, 3D Slicer/Blender can be used to plan implant guided surgery with an accuracy similar to commercial dental software with slightly higher precision. Open‐source nondental software can be considered as an alternative in dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery.

show abstract

“…Edelmann et al investigated the accuracy of single immediate implant placement using the freehand technique with a final 1‐to‐2 drill protocol and found that the deviations between the planned and actual implant positions were not statistically significant in the mesiodistal and buccolingual directions . In contrast to their study, this study did not have an extraction socket that could be regarded as a reference site, and the alveolar bone could be resorbed after tooth extraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Factors that Influence Direction Deviation in Freehand Implant Placement

Tang

Huang

Liao

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This retrospective study investigates the accuracy of freehand implant placement and whether the factors of presence of an adjacent tooth, implant quadrant, number of missing teeth, and location of the implant site influence direction and angulation deviations. Materials and Methods: According to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 112 implants from 75 partially edentulous patients were recruited for this retrospective study. The implants were inserted using a freehand approach by one experienced clinician (right-handed). The full thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar bone in the implant surgery, and the implant crown consisted of an all-ceramic restoration retained by cement. The planned implant position was preoperatively determined using implant planning software. The postoperative implant position was determined by analyzing the alignment after optically scanning the dentition using a specifically designed registration model in Geomagic Studio software. The deviations between the planned and postoperative implant positions were then calculated. The outcomes included direction and angulation deviations between the planned and postoperative implant positions. All data were analyzed by ANOVA, Bonferroni correction, regression analysis, and one-sample t-tests conducted using SPSS. Results: The 3D deviations between planned and postoperative implant positions were 1.22 ± 0.63 mm at the entrance point, 1.91 ± 1.17 mm at the apical point, and 7.93 ± 5.56°in angulation. The presence of adjacent teeth influenced deviations in the mesiodistal (F = 4.338, p = 0.006) and buccolingual directions (F = 3.017, p = 0.033) at the entrance point and mesiodistal angulation (F = 7.979, p < 0.001). The quadrant influenced deviation in the buccolingual direction at the apical point (F = 6.093, p = 0.001) and buccolingual angulation (F = 6.457, p < 0.001). The number of missing teeth had no effect on deviations of direction and angulation of implants. The location of the implant site affected the deviation in the buccolingual direction at the entrance point (F = 3.096, p = 0.049) and the mesiodistal direction at the apical point (F = 3.724, p = 0.027). Conclusion: The 3D accuracy of freehand-placed implants could be acceptable in clinical situations. The results showed that the presence of an adjacent tooth and the quadrant and the location of the implant site influenced the direction and angulation deviations of the implant position; however, the factor of number of missing teeth did not.Proper positioning and angulation of implants are vital for acquiring ideal prosthetic outcomes and reconstructing certain occlusal relationships. 1,2 A lack of accuracy can lead to a variety of complications, such as implant dehiscence and damage to vital anatomic structures.Using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and related computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) surgical template techniques, implant insertion can be conducted under the guidance of the preoperative design. 3 N...

show abstract

Exploring Effectiveness of Computer-Aided Planning in Implant Positioning for a Single Immediate Implant Placement

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

Finite element analysis of a one-piece zirconia implant in anterior single tooth implant applications

Finite element analysis of a one-piece zirconia implant in anterior single tooth implant applications

Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open‐Source Software: An In Vitro Study

Factors that Influence Direction Deviation in Freehand Implant Placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About