Newly developed data-matching methodology for oral implant surgery allowing the automatic deletion of metal artifacts in 3D-CT images using new reference markers: A case report

Single scanning of CBCT and intraoral scanning for guided implantation in terminal dentitions with multi-unit metal restorations: technical note

When anatomical landmarks are missing or obstructed by metal artefacts, it is challenging to accurately merge cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scanning (IOS) information, and the accuracy of the implant surgical guides would be compromised. This article describes a novel technical note using oral wound dressings and flowable resin as additional new radiopaque fiducial landmarks to design surgical guides for full-arch immediate implant placement. This technical note provided an accurate, convenient, and cost-effective option for the clinician.

Accuracy of a novel modified single computed tomography scanning method for assisting dental implant placement: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare dental implant placement accuracy of three surgical guide fabrication methods: single (SCT) and double computed tomography (DCT), and a newly developed modified SCT (MSCT) scan method.

METHODS

A total of 183 cases (183 surgical guides, and 485 implants) of static-guide-assisted implant placement surgery using the SCT, DCT, or MSCT methods in a dental clinic were included in the study. Three-dimensional (3D) deviations (mm) at the entry and tip of the implant body between preoperative simulation and actual placement were measured as surrogate endpoints of implant placement accuracy. The following survey details were collected from medical records and CT data: sex, age at implant placement surgery, surgical guide fabrication method, number of remaining teeth, implant length, implant location, alveolar bone quality, and bone surface inclination at implant placement site in preoperative simulation, etc. Risk factors for reducing implant placement accuracy were investigated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The SCT and DCT methods (odds ratios [ORs] vs. MSCT method: 1.438, 1.178, respectively), posterior location (OR: 1.114), bone surface buccolingual inclination (OR: 0.997), and age at implant placement surgery (OR: 0.995) were significant risk factors for larger 3D deviation at the entry; the SCT (OR: 1.361) and DCT methods (OR: 1.418), posterior location (OR: 1.190), implant length (OR: 1.051), and age at implant placement surgery (OR: 0.995) were significant risk factors for larger 3D deviation at the tip of the implant body.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant placement accuracy was better using the MSCT method compared to the SCT and DCT methods.