Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cone Beam Computed Tomography-Based Evaluation of the Accuracy of Implant Surgery with Conventional (Free Hand) Implant Placement vs Computer Fabricated 3D Guide Implant Placement

  • COMPARATIVE STUDY
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Dental implants have been used in a variety of conventional technique-based forms for many years which had its own drawbacks. With the advent of cone beam CT, proper surgical and prosthetic planning is possible now a days. To achieve ideal implant placement, good prosthetic fabrication and overall successful prognosis computer fabricated guide aided surgery have been developed.

Aim and Objective

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy of implant placement in partially edentulous patients with conventional free hand technique and computer fabricated guide of implant placement by comparing pre- and post-CBCT data.

Methods

The present split mouth study design was conducted with forty sample size on twenty randomly selected patients who were treated with bilateral partially edentulous sites requiring dental implants. Patients were treated with both conventional (free hand) technique and computer fabricated 3D guide aided technique of implant placement. Comparison of accuracy of implant placement was done by comparing the pre- and postoperative CBCT data in terms of mean coronal deviation, mean apical deviation and mean angular deviation.

Results and Conclusion

The results showed that there is no statistically significant difference between mean coronal deviation, mean apical deviation and mean angular deviation of planned and placed implants in both conventional technique (free hand technique) and computer fabricated 3D guide aided implant placement technique. Hence, this study concluded that conventional technique of implant placement is equally efficient in comparison with computer fabricated guide aided surgery in terms of accuracy of implant placement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tallarico M, Scrascia R, Annucci M, Meloni SM, Lumbau AI, Koshovari A, Xhanari E, Martinolli M (2020) Errors in implant positioning due to lack of planning: a clinical case report of new prosthetic materials and solutions. Materials 13(8):1883

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gupta J, Ali SP (2013) Cone beam computed tomography in oral implants. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 4(1):2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nickenig HJ, Wichmann M, Hamel J, Schlegel KA, Eitner S (2010) Evaluation of the difference in accuracy between implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates versus the conventional free-hand method—a combined in vivo–in vitro technique using cone-beam CT (Part II). J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 38(7):488–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vermeulen J (2017) The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32(3):617–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arısan V, Karabuda CZ, Mumcu E, Özdemir T (2013) Implant positioning errors in freehand and computer-aided placement methods: a single-blind clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28(1):190–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alevizakos V, Mitov G, Stoetzer M, von See C (2019) A retrospective study of the accuracy of template-guided versus freehand implant placement: a nonradiologic method. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 128(3):220–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Payer M, Kirmeier R, Jakse N, Pertl C, Wegscheider W, Lorenzoni M (2008) Surgical factors influencing mesiodistal implant angulation. Clin Oral Implant Res 19(3):265–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cho UH, Yu W, Kyung HM (2010) Root contact during drilling for microimplant placement: effect of surgery site and operator expertise. Angle Orthod 80:130–136

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lambert PM, Morris HF, Ochi S (1997) Positive effect of surgical experience with implants on second-stage implant survival. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55:12–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van de Velde T, Glor F, De Bruyn H (2008) A model study on flapless implant placement by clinicians with a different experience level in implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:66–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kohavi D, Azran G, Shapira L, Casap N (2004) Retrospective clinical review of dental implants placed in a university training program. J Oral Implantol 30:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cristache CM, Gurbanescu S (2017) Accuracy evaluation of a stereolithographic surgical template for dental implant insertion using 3D superimposition protocol. Int J Dent. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4292081

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Block MS, Emery RW (2016) Static or dynamic navigation for implant placement choosing the method of guidance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 74(2):269–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mai HN, Lee DH (2020) Effects of supporting conditions and anchor microscrew on the stabilization of the implant guide template during the drilling process: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 124(6):727-e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Marchetti M, Scarfò B, Esposito M (2014) Computerguided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 7(3):229–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vercruyssen M, Van de Wiele G, Teughels W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M (2014) Implant-and patient-centred outcomes of guided surgery, a 1-year follow-up: an RCT comparing guided surgery with conventional implant placement. J Clin Period Ontol 41(12):1154–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Colombo M, Mangano C, Mijiritsky E, Krebs M, Hauschild U, Fortin T (2017) Clinical applications and effectiveness of guided implant surgery: a critical review based on randomized controlled trials. BMC Oral Health 17(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cunha RM, Souza FÁ, Hadad H, Poli PP, Maiorana C, Carvalho PSP (2021) Accuracy evaluation of computer-guided implant surgery associated with prototyped surgical guides. J Prosthet Dent 125(2):266–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Filius MA, Kraeima J, Vissink A, Janssen KI, Raghoebar GM, Visser A (2017) Three-dimensional computer-guided implant placement in oligodontia. Int J Implant Dent 3(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhou W, Liu Z, Song L, Kuo CL, Shafer DM (2018) Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of guided implant surgery—a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dental Pract 18(1):28–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Punjab Government Dental College and Hospital, Amritsar, India

    Nitin Verma, Gurpreet Kamboj, Jeevan Lata, Pradeep Singh & Sharad Gowda

Authors
  1. Nitin Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gurpreet Kamboj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeevan Lata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pradeep Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sharad Gowda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nitin Verma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The ethical clearance for conducting the study was obtained from ethical committee of the institution.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verma, N., Kamboj, G., Lata, J. et al. Cone Beam Computed Tomography-Based Evaluation of the Accuracy of Implant Surgery with Conventional (Free Hand) Implant Placement vs Computer Fabricated 3D Guide Implant Placement. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 22, 1115–1122 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-01887-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-023-01887-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation