Raabe Clemens, Dulla Fabrice Alain, Yilmaz Burak, Chappuis Vivianne, Abou-Ayash Samir
Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Apr;34(4):320-329. doi: 10.1111/clr.14042. Epub 2023 Feb 12.
To evaluate the effect of drilling sequence, guide-hole design, and alveolar ridge morphology on the accuracy of implant placement via static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).
Standardized maxillary bone models including single-tooth gaps with fresh extraction sockets or healed alveolar ridge morphologies were evaluated in this study. Implants were placed using different drilling sequences (i.e., complete [CDS] or minimum [MDS]), and guide-hole designs (i.e., manufacturer's sleeve [MS] or sleeveless [SL] guide-hole designs). The time for implant placement via sCAIS procedures was also recorded. The angular, crestal, and apical three-dimensional deviations between planned and final implant positions were digitally obtained. Statistical analyses were conducted by a non-parametric three-way ANOVA (α = .05).
Based on a sample size analysis, a total of 72 implants were included in this study. Significantly higher implant position accuracy was found at healed sites compared to extraction sockets and in SL compared to MS guide-hole design in angular, crestal, and apical 3D deviations (p ≤ .048). A tendency for higher accuracy was observed for the CDS compared to the MDS, although the effect was not statistically significant (p = .09). The MDS required significantly shorter preparation times compared with CDS (p < .0001).
Implant placement via sCAIS resulted in higher accuracy in healed sites than extraction sockets, when using SL compared to MS guides, and tended to be more accurate when using CDS compared to MDS. Therefore, even though surgery time was shorter with MDS, its use should be limited to strictly selected cases.
通过静态计算机辅助种植手术(sCAIS)评估钻孔顺序、导向孔设计和牙槽嵴形态对种植体植入准确性的影响。
本研究评估了标准化的上颌骨模型,包括带有新鲜拔牙窝或愈合牙槽嵴形态的单牙间隙。使用不同的钻孔顺序(即完整[CDS]或最小[MDS])和导向孔设计(即制造商套筒[MS]或无套筒[SL]导向孔设计)植入种植体。还记录了通过sCAIS程序植入种植体的时间。通过数字方式获得计划种植体位置与最终种植体位置之间的角度、嵴顶和根尖三维偏差。采用非参数三因素方差分析进行统计分析(α = 0.05)。
基于样本量分析,本研究共纳入72颗种植体。在角度、嵴顶和根尖三维偏差方面,与拔牙窝相比,愈合部位的种植体位置准确性显著更高;与MS导向孔设计相比,SL导向孔设计的种植体位置准确性更高(p≤0.048)。与MDS相比,CDS的准确性有更高的趋势,尽管该效果无统计学意义(p = 0.09)。与CDS相比,MDS所需的准备时间显著更短(p < 0.0001)。
通过sCAIS植入种植体时,与拔牙窝相比,愈合部位的准确性更高;与MS导向相比,使用SL导向时准确性更高;与MDS相比,使用CDS时准确性更高。因此,尽管MDS的手术时间更短,但其应用应仅限于严格选择的病例。