Zentrum für Zahnmedizin Dr. Schnutenhaus MVZ GmbH [Center for Dentistry Dr. Schnutenhaus Community Health Center (CHC) GmbH], Breiter Wasmen 10, 78247, Hilzingen, Germany.
Department for Dentistry, Clinic for Prosthodontics, Universität Ulm, Department für Zahnheilkunde, Klinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik [Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Jun 29;20(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01155-x.
The aim of this prospective clinical study was to investigate differences between virtually planned and clinically achieved implant positions in completely template-guided implant placements as a function of the tooth area, the use of alveolar ridge preservation, the implant length and diameter, and the primary implant stability.
The accuracy of 48 implants was analyzed. The implants were placed in a completely template-guided manner. The data of the planned implant positions were superimposed on the actual clinical implant positions, followed by measurements of the 3D deviations in terms of the coronal (dc) and apical distance (da), height (h), angulation (ang), and statistical analysis.
The mean dc was 0.7 mm (SD: 0.3), the mean da was 1.4 mm (SD: 0.6), the mean h was 0.3 mm (SD: 0.3), and the mean ang was 4.1° (SD: 2.1). The tooth area and the use of alveolar ridge preservation had no significant effect on the results in terms of the implant positions. The implant length had a significant influence on da (p = 0.02). The implant diameter had a significant influence on ang (p = 0.04), and the primary stability had a significant influence on h (p = 0.02).
Template-guided implant placement offers a high degree of accuracy independent of the tooth area, the use of measures for alveolar ridge preservation or the implant configuration. A clinical benefit is therefore present, especially from a prosthetic point of view.
German Clinical Trial Register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO: DRKS00005978 ; date of registration: 11/09/2015.
本前瞻性临床研究旨在调查完全模板引导种植中虚拟规划和临床实际种植位置之间的差异，研究因素包括牙齿区域、牙槽嵴保存措施的应用、种植体长度和直径以及初始种植体稳定性。
分析了 48 个种植体的准确性。种植体采用完全模板引导方式植入。将计划种植位置的数据与实际临床种植位置叠加，然后测量 3D 偏差，包括冠向（dc）和根尖向（da）距离、高度（h）、角度（ang），并进行统计分析。
平均 dc 为 0.7mm（SD：0.3），平均 da 为 1.4mm（SD：0.6），平均 h 为 0.3mm（SD：0.3），平均 ang 为 4.1°（SD：2.1）。牙齿区域和牙槽嵴保存措施的应用对种植位置结果无显著影响。种植体长对 da 有显著影响（p=0.02）。种植体直径对 ang 有显著影响（p=0.04），初始稳定性对 h 有显著影响（p=0.02）。
模板引导种植具有很高的准确性，与牙齿区域、牙槽嵴保存措施或种植体配置无关。因此，从修复角度来看，具有明显的临床优势。
德国临床试验注册中心和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台：DRKS00005978；注册日期：2015 年 9 月 11 日。
