Pruthi Gunjan, Judge Roy, Abduo Jaafar, Ngo Luan, Gergely Attila
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.
Oral Health Sciences Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Jun;36(6):710-724. doi: 10.1111/clr.14419. Epub 2025 Feb 18.
To evaluate the effect of socket morphology of a maxillary central incisor on accuracy of single implants placed with freehand or static guided surgery in simulated extraction sockets.
An anatomic central incisor was digitally designed and subtracted from the model to create socket morphology 1 (SM1), socket morphology 2 (SM2), and socket morphology 3 (SM3) simulating a central, retroclined, and proclined tooth. 90 implants were placed with freehand (FH); pilot guided (PG) and fully guided (FG) protocols in 30 models of SM1, SM2 and SM3 each. Implant accuracy was measured for vertical deviation (MVP), maximum horizontal deviation at implant platform (MHP) and apex (MHA), buccolingual (BLP, BLA), mesiodistal (MDP, MDA), and global angular deviation (GAD) deviations.
The effect of interaction between SM and protocol was significant only on MVP (p = 0.03) and GAD (p = 0.000). Individual effect of SM was significant for all variables except mesiodistal deviation. Significant difference was observed among all groups for MHA and BLP, between SM1 and SM2 for all variables except mesiodistal deviation, between SM2 and SM3 for MHP and SM1 and SM3 for BLA (p < 0.05). Implant accuracy was almost similar with FG or PG protocol (p > 0.05) except for MVP (FG vs. PG = 0.01). Buccolingual inaccuracies of implants were higher than mesiodistal deviations.
Vertical, horizontal, and angular deviations were highest in SM2 and least in group SM1. Within each socket, higher implant accuracy was observed with guided protocols than freehand placement. Results of this in vitro study should be interpreted with caution as the outcome may be different in real clinical settings.
评估上颌中切牙拔牙窝形态对在模拟拔牙窝中徒手或静态引导种植单颗种植体准确性的影响。
对一颗解剖学上的中切牙进行数字化设计,并从模型中减去以创建模拟正中、后倾和前倾牙齿的拔牙窝形态1(SM1)、拔牙窝形态2(SM2)和拔牙窝形态3(SM3)。在30个分别具有SM1、SM2和SM3的模型中采用徒手(FH)、初步引导(PG)和完全引导(FG)方案植入90颗种植体。测量种植体的垂直偏差(MVP)、种植体平台处的最大水平偏差(MHP)和根尖处的最大水平偏差(MHA)、颊舌向(BLP、BLA)、近远中向(MDP、MDA)以及整体角度偏差(GAD)。
SM与方案之间的交互作用仅对MVP(p = 0.03)和GAD(p = 0.000)有显著影响。除近远中向偏差外,SM对所有变量的个体影响均显著。在所有组中,MHA和BLP存在显著差异,除近远中向偏差外,SM1和SM2之间的所有变量存在显著差异,SM2和SM3之间的MHP以及SM1和SM3之间的BLA存在显著差异(p < 0.05)。除MVP外,FG或PG方案的种植体准确性几乎相似(FG与PG = 0.01)(p > 0.05)。种植体的颊舌向不准确高于近远中向偏差。
垂直、水平和角度偏差在SM2中最高,在SM1组中最低。在每个拔牙窝内,引导方案的种植体准确性高于徒手植入。由于实际临床环境中的结果可能不同,本体外研究的结果应谨慎解释。