Abstract

Computer aided implantology is the safest way to perform dental implants. The research of high accuracy represents a daily effort. The validated method to assess the accuracy of placed dental implants is the superimposition of a pre-operative and a post-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with planned and placed implants. This procedure is accountable for a biologic cost for the patient. To investigate alternative procedure for accuracy assessment, fifteen resin casts were printed. For each model, six implants were digitally planned and then placed following three different approaches: (a) template guided free hand, (b) static computer aided implantology (SCAI), and (c) dynamic computer aided implantology (DCAI). The placement accuracy of each implant was performed via two methods: the CBCT comparison described above and a matching between implant positions recovered from the original surgical plan with those obtained with a post-operative intraoral scan (IOS). Statistically significant mean differences between guided groups (SCAI and DCAI) and the free hand group were found at all considered deviations, while no differences resulted between the SCAI and DCAI approaches. Moreover, no mean statistically significant differences were found between CBCT and IOS assessment, confirming the validity of this new method.

Highlights

  • Dental implants have dramatically changed the outcome of oral health conditions of patients with missing teeth [1,2,3]

  • The aim of this study was to find out these results, making a comparison between the two above-mentioned methods (IOS vs. cone beam computed tomography (CBCT))

  • Our results showed a statistically significant difference for all the involved variables when the free hand approach, even if template guided, was compared to both the dynamic computer aided implantology (DCAI) and static computer aided implantology (SCAI) approaches

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Dental implants have dramatically changed the outcome of oral health conditions of patients with missing teeth [1,2,3]. Public Health 2020, 17, 9358; doi:10.3390/ijerph17249358 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.