Objectives: This study aims to examine differences in trueness and precision between surgical guides with (S) and without sleeves (SL). A secondary aim was to assess the impact of the sleeve-to-bone distance.
Materials And Methods: Mandible replicas (n = 120) were printed from an STL file obtained from a clinical CBCT. The mandibles were divided into sleeved (S, n = 60) and sleeveless (SL, n = 60) groups, each further divided into three categories (n = 20 each) with different heights from the guide to the implant platform: 2 mm (H2), 4 mm (H4), or 6 mm (H6). Digital planning and surgical guide design were done for a 4.1 × 10 mm implant for site #30. Post-op positions were captured using a scan body and lab scanner. Angular deviation was the primary outcome, with 3D and 2D deviations as secondary parameters. Statistical analysis included two-sample t-tests, and one-way and two-way ANOVA.
Results: Group S (2.41 ± 1.41°) had significantly greater angular deviation than Group SL (1.65 ± 0.93°; p = 0.0001). Angular deviation increased with sleeve-to-bone distance. H2 deviations were 1.48 ± 0.80° (S) vs. 1.02 ± 0.45° (SL; p < 0.05), H4: 2.36 ± 1.04° (S) vs. 1.48 ± 0.79° (SL; p < 0.05), H6: 3.37 ± 0.67° (S) vs. 2.46 ± 0.89° (SL; p < 0.05). 3D deviation at the implant platform was 0.36 ± 0.17 mm (S) vs. 0.30 ± 0.15 mm (SL; p < 0.05) and at the apex 0.74 ± 0.34 mm (S) vs. 0.53 ± 0.31 mm (SL; p < 0.01). Group SL at H2 had the smallest inter-implant distance (0.53 ± 0.37°), while Group S at H4 had the largest (1.20 ± 0.84°; p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Sleeveless guides are more accurate than sleeved guides, and angular deviation is influenced by the distance from the guide to the implant platform.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.14368 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Trueness of tooth modified scan bodies as a novel technique for edentulous full arch implant supported dental prosthesis: an in vivo prospective comparative study.
BMC Oral Health
January 2025
Oral Medicine, Periodontology and Oral Diagnosis, Faculty of Dentistry, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance (degree of trueness) of a novel scan body "tooth-modified Scan body" (TMSB)& conventional scan body (CSB) in implant-supported full arch screw retained cases.
Methods: Seven edentulous arches (two maxillae, five mandibles) in 6 patients were rehabilitated with monolithic zirconia screw-retained implant prostheses supported by 4 (n = 1) and 5 implants (n = 6) for a total amount of 34 implants. Implant locations were scanned by intra-oral scanner (IOS) using two types of scan bodies, conventional scan bodies (CSB) in group (1) and tooth-modified scan bodies (TMSB) in group (2).
Accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in edentulous jaws: a clinical comparative study.
J Dent
January 2025
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Objectives: This clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in a fully edentulous maxilla and mandible.
Methods: A 53-year-old edentulous patient with four maxillary and two mandibular implants was selected. Ten intraoral scans (IOS) and a conventional impression per jaw were taken.
Dental implant placement accuracy with robotic surgery compared to free-hand, static and dynamic computer assisted techniques: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res
December 2024
Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, India.
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the accuracy of robotic-assisted dental implant placement (r-CAIS) with conventional freehand, static computer-assisted (s-CAIS), and dynamic computer-assisted (d-CAIS) techniques.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to January 2024. Studies meeting PICOST criteria, including clinical and in vitro studies, were included.
Comparative accuracy assessment of analog and virtual wax-up in prosthetic-driven planning and guided implant surgery: A retrospective cohort study.
J Prosthodont Res
January 2025
Department of Stomatology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Purpose: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the accuracy of analog versus virtual wax-ups in prosthetic-driven planning and guided surgery.
Methods: There were 73 patients with a single missing posterior tooth who underwent either an analog or virtual wax-up design following a prosthetic-driven concept. Intraoral scans of the final restoration were performed 1 year after completion of the restoration.
Scan accuracy of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners in different fixed partial denture situations.
J Dent
January 2025
Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Material Science, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Objective: To compare the in vitro scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) to commonly used wired IOSs in different fixed partial denture (FPD) situations.
Methods: Three partially edentulous maxillary models with implants located at different sites (lateral incisors [Model 1]; right canine and first molar [Model 2]; right first premolar and first molar [Model 3]) were digitized with wireless (Primescan 2 [P2] and TRIOS 5 [T5]) and wired (Primescan [P1] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) IOSs (n=14 per IOS-model pair). The models were also digitized with an industrial-grade optical scanner for their reference scans.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!