Retrospective Analysis of accurate position of Different Implant Systems Using Mucosa-Supported Surgical Templates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v14i20S.5065Keywords:
Implant positioning accuracy, Mucosa-supported surgical guides, Digital implant planning, CBCT analysis, Guided implant surgery, Edentulous patientsAbstract
Background: Accurate implant positioning is critical for long-term success in implant dentistry. Mucosa-supported surgical templates have gained popularity in edentulous cases due to their non-invasive nature and improved patient comfort. However, limited comparative data exist regarding their accuracy across different implant systems. This study retrospectively evaluates the positional accuracy of three commonly used implant systems when placed using mucosa-supported templates.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 45 edentulous patients (mean age: 61.3 ± 8.5 years) who underwent guided implant placement using mucosa-supported stereolithographic templates between 2020 and 2023. Three implant systems were analyzed: System A (n=15), System B (n=15), and System C (n=15). Pre- and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed using digital planning software to measure deviations at the implant platform, apex, and angular discrepancies. Mean deviations were calculated and statistically analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (significance set at p<0.05).
Results: System A showed a mean coronal deviation of 1.45 ± 0.38 mm, apical deviation of 1.78 ± 0.52 mm, and angular deviation of 4.2° ± 1.1°.System B recorded a mean coronal deviation of 1.21 ± 0.33 mm, apical deviation of 1.55 ± 0.41 mm, and angular deviation of 3.5° ± 0.9°.System C had the lowest deviations, with coronal deviation at 1.02 ± 0.27 mm, apical deviation at 1.29 ± 0.36 mm, and angular deviation of 2.8° ± 0.7°.Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the systems (p<0.05), with System C demonstrating superior positional accuracy.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, System C exhibited significantly higher positioning accuracy when used with mucosa-supported surgical templates compared to Systems A and B. These findings underscore the importance of system-specific template compatibility and suggest that clinicians may achieve enhanced outcomes by selecting implant systems optimized for mucosa-supported guidance.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Zhu F, Mao M, Zhu H, Chen Y, You J, Pan H. Comparison of positioning accuracy between 2 different implant systems using mucosa-supported surgical templates: a retrospective clinical study. J Oral Implantol. 2022;48(1):15-20. doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00283. PMID: 33710322.
Verhamme LM, Meijer GJ, Boumans T, de Haan AF, Bergé SJ, Maal TJ. A clinically relevant accuracy study of computer-planned implant placement in the edentulous maxilla using mucosa-supported surgical templates. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(2):343-52. doi:10.1111/cid.12112. PMID: 23879524.
Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(2):234-42. PMID: 19492638.
Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Ozdemir T. Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant placement: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. J Periodontol. 2010;81(1):43-51. doi:10.1902/jop.2009.090348. PMID: 20059416.
Pessoa R, Siqueira R, Li J, Saleh I, Meneghetti P, Bezerra F, et al. The impact of surgical guide fixation and implant location on accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(2):155-64. doi:10.1111/jopr.13371. PMID: 33904640.
Sharma A, Agarwal SK, Parkash H, Mehra P, Nagpal A. An in vitro comparative evaluation between virtually planned implant positions on interactive implant software versus actual implant positions achieved using sterolithographic open guide system. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(2):254-60. doi:10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_938_18. PMID: 31169159.
Elnashoukaty HM, ElDakkak S, Abdelhakim A. Accuracy of a custom two-piece surgical guide for all-on-four dental implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130(1):101.e1-101.e9. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.022. PMID: 37230911.
Fotopoulos I, Lillis T, Panagiotidou E, Kapagiannidis I, Nazaroglou I, Dabarakis N. Accuracy of dental implant placement with 3D-printed surgical templates by using Implant Studio and MGUIDE. An observational study. Int J Comput Dent. 2022;25(3):249-56. doi:10.3290/j.ijcd.b2599735. PMID: 35072419.
Verhamme LM, Meijer GJ, Bergé SJ, Soehardi RA, Xi T, de Haan AF, et al. An accuracy study of computer-planned implant placement in the augmented maxilla using mucosa-supported surgical templates. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(6):1154-63. doi:10.1111/cid.12230. PMID: 25181255.
Zhou M, Zhou H, Li SY, Yang XB, Geng YM, Che YJ. Accuracy of implant placement guided with surgical template: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2021;41(2):e55-e62. doi:10.11607/prd.4570. PMID: 33819327.
Herschdorfer L, Negreiros WM, Gallucci GO, Hamilton A. Comparison of the accuracy of implants placed with CAD-CAM surgical templates manufactured with various 3D printers: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(6):905-10. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.017. PMID: 32499166.
Skjerven H, Riis UH, Herlofsson BB, Ellingsen JE. In vivo accuracy of implant placement using a full digital planning modality and stereolithographic guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(1):124-32. doi:10.11607/jomi.6939. PMID: 30695088.
Bencharit S, Staffen A, Yeung M, Whitley D 3rd, Laskin DM, Deeb GR. In vivo tooth-supported implant surgical guides fabricated with desktop stereolithographic printers: fully guided surgery is more accurate than partially guided surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(7):1431-9. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2018.02.010. PMID: 29550378.
Cushen SE, Turkyilmaz I. Impact of operator experience on the accuracy of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical templates: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(4):248-54. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60053-0. PMID: 23566606.
Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(4):416-23. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02337.x. PMID: 22092586
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
