Kasradze David, Kubilius Ricardas
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Eiveniu Street 2, Kaunas, 50161, Lithuania.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Apr 13;25(1):563. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-05955-x.
To evaluate the influence of guide support on the accuracy of sCAIS using a keyless guiding system in different cases of partial edentulism.
Sixty polyamide models of partially edentulous maxillae, simulating anterior and posterior single-tooth gaps as well as anterior and distal extended edentulous areas, were fabricated. Full-arch, 2-teeth, and 4-teeth supported surgical guides were used to place implants at FDI 15, 17, 21, 26 sites in Model A and at FDI 12, 22, 15 sites in Model B. In total, 210 replica implants were placed using 120 surgical guides in seven implantation sites. Three-dimensional crestal and apical, angular and vertical deviations from the planned implant positions were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis H test with Dunn's procedure for multiple pairwise comparisons.
Overall median 3D crestal and apical deviations of implants placed with 2-teeth guide support (0.62 mm [0.45-0.84], 0.92 mm [0.69-1.25]) and 4-teeth guide support (0.65 mm [0.52-0.81], 1.01 mm [0.8-1.26]) were significalty lower compared to the full-arch support group (0.86 mm [0.63-0.98], 1.26 mm [0.98-1.52]) with values of p < 0.017. Overall angular and vertical deviations of implants placed with 2-teeth guide support (2.61° [1.71-3.75], 0.32 mm [0.15-0.44]) were significantly lower compare to the full-arch support group (3.22° [2.25-4.41], 0.46 mm [0.24-0.62]). In the subgroup analysis, implants placed at the FDI 12, 22, and 15 positions exhibited significantly higher 3D and angular deviations with full-arch guide support, whereas the 3D apical and angular deviations of were significantly lower with 2-teeth guide support at the FDI 21 site.
The deviations in all guide support groups did not exceed the recommended safety margins. Statistically significant differences were found between guide support groups, with influence of guide support on the accuracy of sCAIS varying across different implantation sites.
Not applicable.
评估在不同类型的部分牙列缺失病例中，使用无钥匙导向系统时导向支撑对单皮质骨内种植体植入术（sCAIS）准确性的影响。
制作了60个部分无牙上颌骨的聚酰胺模型，模拟前牙和后牙单牙间隙以及前牙和远中扩展无牙区。使用全牙弓、2颗牙和4颗牙支撑的手术导板在模型A的FDI 15、17、21、26位点以及模型B的FDI 12、22、15位点植入种植体。总共使用120个手术导板在7个种植位点植入了210个复制种植体。使用Kruskal-Wallis H检验和Dunn法进行多重两两比较，比较种植体与计划种植位置的三维嵴顶和根尖、角度和垂直偏差。
与全牙弓支撑组（0.86 mm [0.63 - 0.98]，1.26 mm [0.98 - 1.52]）相比，使用2颗牙导向支撑（0.62 mm [0.45 - 0.84]，0.92 mm [0.69 - 1.25]）和4颗牙导向支撑（0.65 mm [0.52 - 0.81]，1.01 mm [0.8 - 1.26]）植入的种植体的总体三维嵴顶和根尖偏差显著更低，p值 < 0.017。与全牙弓支撑组（3.22° [2.25 - 4.41]，0.46 mm [0.24 - 0.62]）相比，使用2颗牙导向支撑植入的种植体的总体角度和垂直偏差（2.61° [1.71 - 3.75]，0.32 mm [0.15 - 0.44]）显著更低。在亚组分析中，在FDI 12、22和15位置植入的种植体在全牙弓导向支撑下表现出显著更高的三维和角度偏差，而在FDI 21位点，使用2颗牙导向支撑时种植体的三维根尖和角度偏差显著更低。
所有导向支撑组的偏差均未超过推荐的安全 margins。在导向支撑组之间发现了统计学上的显著差异，导向支撑对sCAIS准确性的影响在不同种植位点有所不同。
不适用。
