Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 2363–2372 | Cite as

3D accuracy of implant positions in template-guided implant placement as a function of the remaining teeth and the surgical procedure: a retrospective study

  • Sigmar Schnutenhaus
  • Cornelia Edelmann
  • Heike Rudolph
  • Jens Dreyhaupt
  • Ralph G. Luthardt
Original Article



The aim of this study was to investigate differences between the virtually planned and clinically achieved implant positions in completely template-guided implantations as a function of the type of edentulous space, the residual natural dentition, and the surgical implementation.

Materials and methods

Fifty-six patient cases with a total of 122 implants were evaluated retrospectively. The implantations were completely template-based. The data of the planned implant positions were overlaid with the actual clinical implant positions, followed by measurements of the 3D deviations in terms of coronal (xc) and apical distance, height (xh), and angulation (ang) and statistical analysis.


The mean xc was 1.2 mm (SD 0.7 mm); the mean xa was 1.8 mm (SD 0.9 mm), the mean xh was 0.8 mm (SD 0.7 mm); and the mean ang was 4.8° (SD 3.1). The type of edentulous space and the jaw (maxilla/mandible) had no significant effect on the results in terms of implant positions. The presence of an adjacent natural tooth at the time of implantation had a significant influence on xh (p = 0.04) and ang (p = 0.05). No significant differences were found regarding the surgical approach for any of the parameters examined.


The results of our study are in the same range as those of other studies. Template-guided implantation offers a high degree of accuracy even in the presence of different configurations of the residual dentition or different surgical approaches. A clinical benefit is therefore present, especially from a prosthetic point of view.

Clinical relevance

The clinically achievable accuracy can be described as sufficient for further prosthetic treatment, given the intrinsic and methodological tolerances, making prosthetic rehabilitation safe and predictable.


Dental implant Surgical template CBCT Computer-guided surgery Accuracy Partially edentulous jaw 



The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists as per the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. There was no funding for this study. Within the framework of another prospective study, Camlog and Swissmeda provided materials. The first-named author has held presentations for Camlog and Swissmeda.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Ulm (decision no. 339/14 dated April 12, 2014).

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Park C, Raigrodski AJ, Rosen J, Spiekerman C, London RM (2009) Accuracy of implant placement using precision surgical guides with varying occlusogingival heights: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 101(6):372–381. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N (2012) Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(4):416–423. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 Craniomaxillofac Surg 38(7):488–493. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JYK, Schutyser F, Boumans T (2015) Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent 114(3):407–413. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vercruyssen M, Cox C, Coucke W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M (2014) A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template. J Clin Periodontol 41(7):717–723. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE (2009) A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(Suppl 4):73–86. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W (2014) Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(Suppl):25–42. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reyes A, Turkyilmaz I, Prihoda TJ (2015) Accuracy of surgical guides made from conventional and a combination of digital scanning and rapid prototyping techniques. J Prosthet Dent 113(4):295–303. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kernen F et al (2015) Accuracy of three-dimensional printed templates for guided implant placement based on matching a surface scan with CBCT. Clin Implant Dent Relat ResGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhl S et al (2015) Technical accuracy of printed surgical templates for guided implant surgery with the coDiagnostiX software. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(Suppl 1):e177–e182. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geng W, Liu C, Su Y, Li J, Zhou Y (2015) Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(6):8442–8449PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I (2012) Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 108(3):181–188. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raico Gallardo YN et al (2016) Accuracy comparison of guided surgery for dental implants according to the tissue of support: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants ResGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Knierim K, Behneke N (2012) Accuracy assessment of cone beam computed tomography-derived laboratory-based surgical templates on partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(2):137–143. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao XZ, Xu WH, Tang ZH, Wu MJ, Zhu J, Chen S (2014) Accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery by a CAD/CAM and laser scanning technique. Chin J Dent Res 17(1):31–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naziri E, Schramm A, Wilde F (2016) Accuracy of computer-assisted implant placement with insertion templates. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW. 5: p. Doc15Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beretta M, Poli PP, Maiorana C (2014) Accuracy of computer-aided template-guided oral implant placement: a prospective clinical study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 44(4):184–193. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alzoubi F, Massoomi N, Nattestad A (2016) Accuracy assessment of immediate and delayed implant placements using CAD/CAM surgical guides. J Oral ImplantolGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scherer U, Stoetzer M, Ruecker M, Gellrich NC, von See C (2015) Template-guided vs. non-guided drilling in site preparation of dental implants. Clin Oral Investig 19(6):1339–1346. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schnutenhaus S, Edelmann C, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2016) Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 121(4):e72–e79. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed, vol xxi. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale 567 pGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vercruyssen M et al (2008) The use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means of implants and its transfer to the surgical field: a critical review on accuracy. J Oral Rehabil 35(6):454–474. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneider D, Schober F, Grohmann P, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE (2015) In-vitro evaluation of the tolerance of surgical instruments in templates for computer-assisted guided implantology produced by 3-D printing. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(3):320–325. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Jacobs R (2010) Accuracy assessment of computer-assisted flapless implant placement in partial edentulism. J Clin Periodontol 37(4):398–403. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ersoy AE, Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, McGlumphy EA (2008) Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. J Periodontol 79(8):1339–1345. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Ozdemir T (2010) Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. J Periodontol 81(1):43–51. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Platzer S, Bertha G, Heschl A, Wegscheider WA, Lorenzoni M (2013) Three-dimensional accuracy of guided implant placement: indirect assessment of clinical outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15(5):724–734. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cassetta M, Giansanti M, di Mambro A, Calasso S, Barbato E (2013) Accuracy of two stereolithographic surgical templates: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 15(3):448–459. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center of DentistryUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.HilzingenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Epidemiology and Medical BiometryUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations