Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jun;30(6):531-541. doi: 10.1111/clr.13438. Epub 2019 May 12.
To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with a digitally planned guided implant procedure. Two methods for identifying the actual postoperative positioning of the implants were compared: CBCT and IO scanning.
Twenty-eight implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface were placed in thirteen patients using tooth-supported surgical guides following a digital planning procedure. The implants were submerged for 12-15 weeks. New CBCT images were taken for identification of the implant position. After second stage surgery, scan bodies were mounted on the implants and scanned with an IO digital scanner. The recordings from the CBCT images and the IO scans were compared with respect to the identified positions of the implants.
The study did not resolve any significant differences of the identified positioning of the implants as measured by CBCT or IO, except for the apical deviations at the coronal and apical points. The angular difference between CBCT and IO scanning at the coronal point was -0.011 (±0.6) degrees, whereas the 3D deviation was 0.03(±0.17) mm. The distal deviation between CBCT and IO scanning was 0.01(± 0.16) mm, and the vestibular deviation 0.033(± 0.16) mm and the apical deviation difference was 0.09(± 0.16) mm. The 3D deviation at the apical point was 0.04(± 0.22) mm. The distal deviation between CBCT and IO scanning was 0.06(± 0.19) mm, and the vestibular deviation 0.032(± 0.23) mm and the apical deviation difference was 0.09(± 0. 16) mm.
The study demonstrated that accuracy measurements using IO scanning yields comparable results to those obtained by CBCT.
评估数字化引导种植手术中种植体植入精度。比较两种识别种植体实际术后位置的方法：CBCT 和 IO 扫描。
13 名患者共植入 28 颗表面喷砂酸蚀种植体，使用基于牙支持的外科导板进行数字化种植规划。种植体植入后埋入 12-15 周。通过新的 CBCT 图像识别种植体位置。二期手术后，将扫描体安装在种植体上，使用 IO 数字扫描仪进行扫描。将 CBCT 图像和 IO 扫描的记录与种植体的识别位置进行比较。
研究未发现 CBCT 或 IO 测量的种植体定位有任何显著差异，除了近远中根尖偏差。CBCT 和 IO 扫描在近中根尖点的角度差异为 -0.011（±0.6）度，而 3D 偏差为 0.03（±0.17）mm。CBCT 和 IO 扫描在远中根尖的偏差为 0.01（±0.16）mm，颊舌侧偏差为 0.033（±0.16）mm，根尖偏差差异为 0.09（±0.16）mm。根尖点的 3D 偏差为 0.04（±0.22）mm。CBCT 和 IO 扫描在远中根尖的偏差为 0.06（±0.19）mm，颊舌侧偏差为 0.032（±0.23）mm，根尖偏差差异为 0.09（±0.16）mm。
本研究表明，使用 IO 扫描进行精度测量可获得与 CBCT 相当的结果。
