OBJECTIVES

This in-vitro study evaluates the accuracy of modular surgical templates used to fully guide implants in combination with bone reduction, performed by expert and students, for complete arch restorations.

METHODS

All the procedures were performed by dental students of the final year and an expert clinician, on twelve edentulous mandible models. A virtual implant planning, simulating a complete arch restoration on six implants were performed. Three different surgical guides were designed and printed to allow conventional fully guided implant placement (group 1); fully guided implant placement with modular guides (group 2); and fully guided implant placement after bone reduction, with similar, modular guides (group 3). After implant placement, optical scans of the study models were taken. Surface deviation and accuracy were evaluated and compared between groups and subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 12 surgical templates were used. Of these, Two templates in each group were used by two different students, while, the other six templates were used by an expert clinician as follows: one template with screwed anchor pins and one with pushed anchor pins in each group. A total of 72 implants were placed. Statistically significant difference was found between different template designs, when the implants were placed by an expert clinician. No statistically significant difference was found between expert and students, except the deviation in an angle value (students 2.13±1.46° versus expert 0.90±0.91°; P Value=0.0447) in the group 3. A statistically significant difference was found in favor of screwed anchor pins, in the group 1, in horizontal deviation (screwed pins 0.18±0.13 mm versus pushed pins 0.56±0.28 mm; P Value=0.0124; Table 5). No statistically significant difference was found between different template designs when the fully guided implants were placed by students, in both angle and horizontally (P=0.2787 and P=0.6601, respectively). A statistically significant difference was found between groups when the implants were placed by an expert clinician, with better value using screwed anchor pins, in the horizontal plane (P= 0.0293) but not in angle (P= 0.3380).

CONCLUSIONS

Modular templates provide a similar level of accuracy to conventional, one-piece guides. Screwed pins should be used to fix the base portion of the modular guides. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Modular surgical guides provide comparable accuracy to conventional, single-piece guides, however they offer more possibilities, helping in bone reduction and immediate loading procedures. Screwed anchor pins used to fix the base portion of the modular guides provide better final results than pushed pins.