New innovative method relating guided surgery to dental implant placement

Fauroux, Marie-Alix; Boutray, Marie de; Malthiéry, E; Torres, J.

doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2018.02.002

Cited by 14 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, this clinical study is today the only one that documents a large number of cases treated with the present new method of guided surgery, in which the handpiece is guided rather than the drills. In fact, in the literature, there are only two studies of this system for guided surgery [34, 35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel guided surgery system with a sleeveless open frame structure: a retrospective clinical study on 38 partially edentulous patients with 1 year of follow-up

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis retrospective clinical study aims to present results of experience with a novel guided surgery system with a sleeveless, open-frame structure, in which the surgical handpiece (not the drills used for preparation) is guided.MethodsThis study was based on an evaluation of the records of partially edentulous patients who had been treated with a sleeveless open-frame guided surgery system (TWIN-Guide®, 2Ingis, Brussels, Belgium), between January 2015 and December 2017. Inclusion criteria were patients with good systemic/oral health and a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Exclusion criteria were patients who had been treated without a guide, or with a guide with sleeves, patients with systemic/oral diseases and who did not have a follow-up of 1 year. The main outcomes were surgical (fit and stability of the surgical guide, duration of the intervention, implant stability, and any intra-operative or immediate post-operative complication), biologic, and prosthetic.ResultsThirty-eight patients (24 males, 14 females; mean age 56.5 ± 14.0 years) were included in the study. These patients had been treated with 110 implants inserted by means of 40 sleeveless, open-frame guides. With regard to fit and stability, 34 guides were excellent, 4 acceptable, and 2 inadequate for use. The mean duration of the intervention was 23.7 (± 6.7) minutes. Immediately after placement, 2 fixtures were not stable and had to be removed. Two patients experienced pain/swelling after surgery. The 108 surviving implants were restored with 36 single crowns and 32 fixed partial prostheses (24 two-unit and 8 three-unit bridges); these restorations survived until the 1-year follow-up, with a low incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications.ConclusionsWithin the limits of this study, this novel guided surgery system with sleeveless, open frame–structure guides seems to be clinically reliable; further studies on a larger sample of patients are needed to confirm these outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel guided surgery system with a sleeveless open frame structure: a retrospective clinical study on 38 partially edentulous patients with 1 year of follow-up

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This deviation can be a result of multiple sources: from the imaging process, data transfer, template manufacture, inaccurate positioning of the guide in the mouth, and drill errors . These variables may influence the angulation, length, and diameter of the osteotomy as well as implant insertion that translates to deviations in implant position …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These variables may influence the angulation, length, and diameter of the osteotomy as well as implant insertion that translates to deviations in implant position. [12][13][14][15][16][17] A meta-analysis focusing on trials with patients, by Tahmaseb et al, 18 concluded that the accuracy of sCAIS is within the clinically acceptable range in the majority of the cases, however, a safety margin of at least 2 mm should be respected. Inaccurate implant positioning can directly compromise the final prosthetic outcome and safety of the surgical procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of implant macrodesign and insertion connection technology on the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant surgery

Kholy

Ebenezer

Wittneben

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of three different macrodesigns and two different insertion devices on the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS). Materials and Methods Ninety implant replicas with three different macrodesigns: Soft tissue level (TL), bone level (BL), and bone level tapered (BLT) were placed in 30 dental models with two implant insertion devices: Guided adapter and guided screwed‐in mount. Preoperative and postoperative positions of implants were compared and the mean angular deviation, crestal, and apical three‐dimensional (3D) deviation were calculated for each implant macrodesign and each insertion device. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, post hoc t‐tests and Bonferroni‐Holm's adjustment method. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. Results BLT implants had lower mean 3D deviation values at the crest and the apex when compared with 3D deviations with BL and TL implants (P < .05). Also, BLT implants had lower angular deviations, when compared with BL and TL Implants, however, angular deviations were not statistically significant (P > .05). Considering the insertion device method, no significant differences were noted between insertion devices irrespective of the deviation analyzed. Conclusion The macrodesign of dental implants may have an influence on the accuracy of sCAIS, with tapered designs offering slightly better positional accuracy than parallel‐walled macrodesigns independent on the method of insertion used.

show abstract

“…We hypothesize that the control of these variables would improve the predictability and accuracy of treatment outcomes. Notably, drill guidance and drill related deviations have been shown to have a significant impact on the accuracy of implant placement . Nevertheless, the effect of the different components involved in the drill guidance process is still poorly understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notably, drill guidance and drill related deviations have been shown to have a significant impact on the accuracy of implant placement. 19 Nevertheless, the effect of the different components involved in the drill guidance process is still poorly understood. Consequently, this study specifically aims to investigate the effect of sleeve height, drilling distance and drilling key height on the accuracy of dental implants placed with a sCAIS approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery

Kholy

Janner

Schimmel

et al. 2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and guided key height on accuracy of static Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS). Materials and Methods Pre and post‐operative positions of implants placed in duplicate dental models were compared and recorded after placement of implants according to a standardized treatment planning and execution sCAIS protocol. Guided sleeve heights: 2 mm, 4 mm, 6 mm and guided key heights: 1 mm and 3 mm were equally randomized in six test groups with varying implant lengths (10‐16 mm) and surgical drilling protocols. The mean crestal and apical three‐dimensional (3D) deviation, as well as the angular deviation were calculated for each group. Data was analyzed using multivariate analysis anova. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. All P values of post‐hoc tests were corrected for multiple testing using Bonferroni‐Holm's adjustment method. Results 3D implant positioning accuracy was not significantly affected by the difference in sleeve height alone or by the implant length alone (P > .05). However, 3D and angular deviation values became significantly higher as the total drilling distance below the guided sleeve increased and significantly became lower as the guided key height above the sleeve increased. 18 mm drilling distance resulted in a significantly higher deviation, when compared to 14 mm or 16 mm drilling distances, irrespective of sleeve height or implant length (P < .01). 3 mm key height resulted in significantly less 3D deviation than 1 mm key height (P < .01). Conclusion Decreasing the drilling distance below the guided sleeve, by using shorter sleeve heights or shorter implants can significantly increase the accuracy of sCAIS.

show abstract

New innovative method relating guided surgery to dental implant placement

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

A novel guided surgery system with a sleeveless open frame structure: a retrospective clinical study on 38 partially edentulous patients with 1 year of follow-up

A novel guided surgery system with a sleeveless open frame structure: a retrospective clinical study on 38 partially edentulous patients with 1 year of follow-up

Influence of implant macrodesign and insertion connection technology on the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant surgery

The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About