The Precision of All-on-Four Implant Position Recorded from Three Different CBCT Machines

OBJECTIVE

 To investigate the dimensional discrepancy and degree of deviation of All-on-Four implant position between different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) machines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Four implants (4.5 × 10 mm Superline II, Dentium, South Korea) were placed in an All-on-Four style in an artificial mandible. The jaw was radiated 30 times using three different CBCT machines (Rainbow CT, Dentium; Veraview X800, Morita, Japan; Planmeca Viso G3, Planmeca OY, Finland). A total of 30 Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files were exported, n = 10. All-on-Four implants from each DICOM file were segmented and exported as an STL file (three-dimensional image) using Blue Sky Plan software (version 4.12.13/Blue Sky Bio, United States). All-on-Four implant zone dimensions (X, Y, and Z axes) and the total degree of deviation between All-on-Four implants per CBCT machine were measured using Autodesk Meshmixer software (version 3.5.474/California, United States). The data distribution's normality and variances' equality were tested with Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests, respectively (p-value < 0.05). Data were analyzed using Brown-Forsythe one-way analysis of variance and Tamhane's post hoc tests to compare the differences between the groups (p-value <0.05).

RESULTS

 The respective X, Y, and Z mean dimensions of the All-on-Four implant zone were: Dentium (34.95, 14.71, and 9.97); Morita (34.88, 14.74, and 10.56); and Planmeca (34.73, 15.15, and 12.33). Significant differences between CBCT machines were found in all axes (p-value < 0.05); however, the Z-axis had the most differences. Notably, Planmeca exhibited the highest standard deviation (SD) in all axes (0.16-0.35), exhibiting the lowest consistency in the CBCT machines' readings. The Dentium exhibited the lowest deviation in the implant position, with the lowest SD (0.61). A significant difference in the total degree of deviation was spotted when only Morita was included in the comparison (p-value < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 This study's findings are of significant importance as they reveal that the implant position recorded from the CBCT machines was most discrepant in the buccolingual dimension (Z-axis). Planmeca exhibited the least implant-dimensional accuracy of the CBCT machines, while Dentium exhibited the highest implant position accuracy. These results could significantly impact the choice of CBCT machine for implant placement, especially since an accurate CBCT image is crucial for digital implant planning.

Position of digitally guided implants in completely edentulous maxillae by using a modified double-scan and overlap of three digital surface protocol

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

In patients with a completely edentulous maxilla, the variability in resilience and mucosal thickness and the lack of teeth and rigid supporting structures may lead to poor adaptation of the surgical guide and significant variation in the definitive implant position. Whether a modified double-scan technique with overlap of surfaces will improve implant placement is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to evaluate the 3-dimensional position and the correlation of 6 dental implants in participants with a completely edentulous maxilla using a mucosa-supported flapless surgical guide designed with 3 matched digital surfaces obtained with a modified double-scan protocol.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Dental implants were installed with an all-on-6 protocol in the edentulous maxilla of participants at the Santa Cruz Public Hospital, Chile. A stereolithographic mucosa-supported template was fabricated from a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan made with a prosthesis with 8 radiopaque ceramic spheres inserted and by scanning the same prosthesis with an intraoral scanner. The mucosa was obtained by digitally casting the relining of the removable complete denture in the design software program. After 4 months, a second CBCT scan was obtained to evaluate the position of the installed implants measured at 3 locations: apical, coronal, platform depth, and angulation. Differences in position between the 6 implants in the completely edentulous maxilla and their linear correlation at the measured points were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman correlation tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

Sixty implants were installed in 10 participants (age 54.3 ±8.2 years; 7 women). The average deviation in the apical axis was 1.02 ±0.9 mm, coronal 0.76 ±0.74 mm, platform depth 0.92 ±0.8 mm, and the major axis angulation of the 6 implants was 2.92 ±3.65 degrees. The implant in the maxillary left lateral incisor region had the most significant deviation in apical and angular points (P<.05). A linear correlation between apical-to-coronal deviations and apical-to-angular deviations was observed for all implants (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A stereolithographic mucosa-supported guide designed with the overlap of 3 digital surfaces had average dental implant position values similar to those reported by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In addition, implant position varied based on the location of the implant installation in the edentulous maxilla.

Influence of Metal Guide Sleeves on the Accuracy and Precision of Dental Implant Placement Using Guided Implant Surgery: An In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

Metal sleeves are commonly used in implant guides for guided surgery. Cost and sleeve specification limit the applications. This in vitro study examined the differences in the implant position deviations produced by a digitally designed surgical guide with no metal sleeve in comparison to a conventional one with a metal sleeve.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted in two steps for each step: n = 20 casts total, 10 casts each group; Step 1 to examine one guide from each group with ten implant placements in a dental cast, and Step 2 to examine one guide to one cast. Implant placement was performed using a guided surgical protocol. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography images were made and were superimposed onto the treatment-planning images. The implant horizontal and angulation deviations from the planned position were measured and analyzed using t-test and F-test (p = 0.05).

RESULTS

For Step 1 and 2, respectively, implant deviations for the surgical guide with sleeve were -0.3 ±0.17 mm and 0.15 ±0.23 mm mesially, 0.60 ±1.69 mm, and -1.50 ±0.99 mm buccolingual at the apex, 0.20 ±0.47 mm and -0.60 ±0.27 mm buccolingual at the cervical, and 2.73° ±4.80° and -1.49° ±2.91° in the buccolingual angulation. For Step 1 and 2, respectively, the implant deviations for the surgical guide without sleeve were -0.17 ±0.14 mm and -0.06 ±0.07 mm mesially, 0.35 ±1.04 mm and -1.619 ±1.03 mm buccolingual at the apex, 0.10 ±0.27 mm and -0.62 ±0.27 mm buccolingual at the cervical, and 1.73° ±3.66° and -1.64° ±2.26° in the buccolingual angulation. No statistically significant differences were found in any group except for mesial deviation of the Step 2 group (F-test, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A digitally designed surgical guide with no metal sleeve demonstrates similar accuracy but higher precision compared to a surgical guide with a metal sleeve. Metal sleeves may not be required for guided surgery.

Implant Survival Rate and Prosthetic Complications of OT Equator Retained Maxillary Overdenture: A Cohort Study

(1) Background: The overdenture is a complete denture, an implant-supported prosthesis, that the patient can remove at home for the usual oral hygiene procedures, thanks to a simple and intuitive anchoring system. Clinically, the execution of this rehabilitation for the lower arch is often favored, but when it is necessary to limit the extension of the palate in the upper arch, it can represent the least invasive and economic solution. The aim of the study is to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous upper jaw. (2) Methods: This retrospective study was carried out on patients who received a superior overdenture on four implants for rehabilitation. A total of 42 patients were included in this study and initially evaluated clinically and radiographically. The follow-up period for patients after delivery of the upper overdenture is between 48 and 72 months. A total of 168 implants were inserted and monitored in this period. Clinical and radiographic tests were carried out on all 168 implants, with constant re-evaluation. (3) Results: The overall implant survival rate is 92.9%, a value that corresponds to those present in the literature in previously published studies. There were few prosthetic complications, mainly the detachment of anterior prosthetic teeth. (4) Conclusions: Most of these complete prostheses, which as antagonist had another previously made overdenture on four or on two implants, achieved excellent success rates in this study at 72 months.

Effects of two Postprocessing Methods onto Surface Dimension of in-Office Fabricated Stereolithographic Implant Surgical Guides

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of two postprocessing methods in terms of the overall, intaglio, and cameo surface dimensions of in-office stereolithographic fabricated implant surgical guides.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty identical implant surgical guides were fabricated using a stereolithographic printer. Ten guides were postprocessed using an automated method. The other ten guides were postprocessed using a series of hand washing in combination with ultrasonics. Each guide was then scanned using cone-beam computed tomography to produce a set of digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files which were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. The STL file was then superimposed onto the original STL design file using the best fit alignment. The average positive and negative surface discrepancy differences in terms of means and variances were analyzed using t-test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

For the alternative group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 77.38 ± 10.68 µm and -67.74 ± 6.55 µm; 78.83 ± 8.65 µm and -68.16 ± 5.26 µm; and 70.5 ± 8.48 µm -64.84 ± 5.55 µm, respectively. For the automated group, the average positive and negative overall, intaglio, and cameo surface discrepancies were 51.88 ± 4.38 µm and -170.7 ± 11.49 µm; 64.3 ± 4.44 µm and -89.45 ± 6.25 µm; and 83.59 ± 4.81 µm and -144.26 ± 13.19 µm, respectively. There was a statistical difference between the means of the two methods for the overall, intaglio, and cameo positive and negative discrepancies (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For a single implant tooth-supported implant guide, using hand washing with ultrasonics appeared to be consistently better than the automated method. The manual method presented with more positive discrepancies, while the automated method presented with more negative discrepancies.

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

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.

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

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.

Factors that Influence Direction Deviation in Freehand Implant Placement

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.

Trephination-based, guided surgical implant placement: A clinical study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional guided implant surgery promises clinical success through implant placement accuracy; however, it requires multiple drills along with surgical sleeves and sleeve adapters for the horizontal and vertical control of osteotomy drills. This results in cumbersome surgery, problems with patients having limited mouth opening, and restriction to specific drill or implant manufacturers. A protocol for using trephination drills to simplify guided surgery and accommodate multiple implant systems is introduced.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using this novel guided trephine drill protocol with and without a surgical sleeve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Intraoral scanning and preoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were used for implant treatment planning. Surgical guides were fabricated using stereolithography. Implant surgery was performed using the guided trephination protocol with and without a surgical sleeve. Postoperative CBCT scans were used to measure the implant placement deviations rather than the implant planning position. Surgical placement time and patient satisfaction were also documented. One-tailed t test and F-test (P=.01) were used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Thirty-five implants in 17 participants were included in this study. With a surgical sleeve, implant positional deviations were 0.51 ±0.13 mm vertically, 0.32 ±0.10 mm facially, 0.11 ±0.11 mm lingually, and 0.38 ±0.13 mm mesially. Without a surgical sleeve, implant positional deviations were 0.58 ±0.27 mm vertically, 0.3 ±0.14 mm facially, 0.39 ±0.16 mm lingually, and 0.41 ±0.12 mm mesially. No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 protocols (P>.01), except that the sleeve group had greater vertical control precision (F-test, P=.006), reduced placement time, and the time variation was reduced (t test, P=.003; F-test, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This trephination-based, guided implant surgery protocol produces accurate surgical guides that permit guided surgery in limited vertical access and with the same guided surgery protocol for multiple implant systems. Guided sleeves, although not always necessary, improve depth control and reduce surgical time in implant placement.

Retrospective analysis of porous tantalum trabecular metal-enhanced titanium dental implants

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The design of porous tantalum trabecular metal-enhanced titanium (TM) dental implants promises improved osseointegration, especially when grafting materials such as demineralized bone matrix are used; however, studies are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare TM implants with conventional titanium alloy (Ti) implants with and without demineralized bone matrix in terms of peri-implant bone remodeling in the first year after implant loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A chart review was used for all patients receiving Tapered Screw-Vent Ti and TM implants. Implants were placed and restored by a single provider between 2011 and 2015. Peri-implant bone remodeling was compared by using a paired t test (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients received 205 implants, 44 TM and 161 Ti implants (control). No implants failed in the TM group (survival rate of 100%), and 3 implants in total, 1 immediate, failed in the Ti groups (survival rate of 98.1%). TM implants exhibited a 0.28-mm bone gain on average, whereas the control group demonstrated 0.20 mm of marginal bone loss after the first year of implant loading. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the odds of having bone loss was 64% less (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.94) in the TM group than in the Ti group after controlling for bone grafting, implant location, immediate placement, bone type, and pretreatment bone level.

CONCLUSIONS

TM implants exhibited less peri-implant bone loss than the control Ti implants.

Computer-guided implant removal: A clinical report

Occasionally, osseointegrated dental implants must be removed because of complications such as malpositioning or screw fracture. This is most often accomplished with a surgical handpiece and trephine. However, a flap is often required to access and visualize the implants. This paper presents a treatment in which computer planning and a 3-dimensional-printed, custom fabricated, surgical guide was used to assist in implant removal. This technique simplified the procedure, allowed conservative removal of peri-implant bone, and permitted subsequent immediate implant replacement.

In-office fabrication of dental implant surgical guides using desktop stereolithographic printing and implant treatment planning software: A clinical report

Guided surgery is accepted as the most accurate way to place an implant and predictably relate the implant to its definitive prosthesis, although few clinicians use it. However, recent developments in high-quality desktop 3-dimensional stereolithographic printers have led to the in-office fabrication of stereolithographic surgical guides at reduced cost. This clinical report demonstrates a protocol for using a cost-effective, in-office rapid prototyping technique to fabricate a surgical guide for dental implant placement.