Precision Evaluation of Different Types of Digital Guide Plate

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2019.02.005

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: By comparing the accuracy of different types of digital guide plates, the influencing factors of implant implantation accuracy were discussed, which provided theoretical basis and experimental data for clinical application of digital guide plates. Methods: A total of 127 implants were selected from 32 patients. The implant angular deviations, depth deviations, deviations of neck and apex were measured by preoperative and postoperative CT data. The errors between the actual implant position and the preoperative simulated position were compared. Results: The mean depth deviations were （0.33±0.29） mm and （0.59±0.51） mm, the mean deviations in position at the neck were （0.32±0.27） mm and （0.76±0.55） mm the mean deviations in position at the apex were （0.42±0.32） mm and （0.89±0.73） mm and angular deviations were （1.83±1.52）° and （2.98±2.23）° with tooth- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides, respectively (P<0.05). The mean distance deviations when pressuring templates guided and non-pressuring templates were used were （0.66±0.51） mm and （0.52±0.37） mm, respectively, at the neck and (0.84±0.63) mm and (0.92±0.72) mm, respectively, at the apex, with corresponding mean angular deviations of （2.32±2.01）° and （2.83±2.52）° (P>0.05). Conclusions: The accuracy of dental support implant guides is better than that of mucosal support implant guides; stop-ring implant guides can reduce the difficulty of clinical operation and obtain the same results as press-plate implant guides.

Key words: Digital guide plate, Oral implant, Precision evaluation, Computer Aided Design

摘要：

目的：本文旨在通过研究不同支持式外科导板的三维精度，探讨影响导板精确性的因素，为导板的临床使用提供实验依据。方法：选取32例患者在导板引导下植入127枚种植体，利用软件对比术前设计位点、术后种植体实际位点在植入深度、角度、肩部和根部上的偏移差异，并进行统计学分析。结果：两组患者分别应用牙支持式外科导板和黏膜支持式外科导板，两组种植体偏差深度分别为（0.33±0.29） mm和（0.59±0.51） mm，肩部偏差分别为（0.32±0.27） mm和（0.76±0.55） mm，角度偏差分别为（1.83±1.52）°和（2.98±2.23）°；根部偏差分别为（0.42±0.32） mm 和（0.89±0.73） mm。统计分析得出P<0.05，组间差异具有统计学意义。表明牙支持式外科导板精确度高于黏膜支持式外科导板。压板式和止停环式导板偏差深度分别为（0.53±0.43） mm 和（0.58±0.39） mm，肩部偏差分别为（0.66±0.51） mm和（0.52±0.37） mm，角度偏差分别为（2.32±2.01）°和（2.83±2.52）°，根部偏差分别为（0.84±0.63） mm 和（0.92±0.72） mm。统计学分析得出P>0.05，说明两组间差异没有统计学意义，提示两种导板设计精度相同。结论：牙支持式种相对黏膜支持式种植外科导板能获得更高的精度；而止停环式种植外科导板在降低临床操作难度的同时，也能够获得与压板式种植外科导板引导下同样的精度。

关键词: 数字化导板, 口腔种植, 三维精度, 计算机辅助设计

CLC Number:

R782.4

LIAO Juan, REN Xun, LING Mu, WU Hao. Precision Evaluation of Different Types of Digital Guide Plate[J]. 《Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery》, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2019.02.005.

廖娟, 任迅, 林木, 吴浩. 不同支持式外科导板在牙种植中的应用比较[J]. 《口腔颌面外科杂志》, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2019.02.005.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: https://journal06.magtech.org.cn/Jweb_joms/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1005-4979.2019.02.005

https://journal06.magtech.org.cn/Jweb_joms/EN/Y2019/V29/I2/88

References

[1] Fortin T, Bosson JL, Coudert JL, et al. Reliability of preoperative planning of an image-guided system for oral implant placement based on 3-dimensional images: an in vivo study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2003, 18(6): 886-893.

[2] Suzuki EY, Suzuki B. Accuracy of miniscrew implant placement with a 3-dimensional surgical guide[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 66(6): 1245-1252.

[3] Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Giansanti M, et al. The intrinsic error of a stereolithographic surgical template in implant guided surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013, 42(2): 264-275.

[4] 何女, 钱江, 赵佳佳, 等. 数字化导板用于牙种植的三维精度分析[J]. 口腔颌面外科杂志, 2015, 25(2): 117-120.

[5] Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Yilmaz B. A preliminary report of patients treated with early loaded implants using computerized tomography-guided surgical stents: flapless versus conventional flapped surgery[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2007, 34(11): 835-840.

[6] Van de Velde T, Glor F, De Bruyn H. A model study on flapless implant placement by clinicians with a different experience level in implant surgery[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2008, 19(1): 66-72.

[7] 胡秀莲, 蒋析, 任抒欣. 种植外科手术导板数字化加工[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2012, 5(5): 266-272.

[8] Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Ozdemir T. Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study[J]. J Periodontol, 2010, 81(1): 43-51.

[9] Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2009, 24(2): 234-242.

[10] Vercruyssen M, Jacobs R, Van Assche N, et al. 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]. J Oral Rehabil, 2008, 35(6): 454-474.

[11] Verhamme LM, Meijer GJ, Boumans T, et al. A clinically relevant accuracy study of computer-planned implant placement in the edentulous maxilla using mucosa-supported surgical templates[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2015, 17(2): 343-352.

[12] Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE, et al. Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009, 67(2): 394-401.

[13] Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2003, 18(4): 571-577.

[14] Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, et al. Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgicalplanning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2007, 34(9): 816-821.

[15] Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2012, 108(3): 181-188.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export