The accuracy evaluation of digital surgical stents according to supported type / 대한치과보철학회지

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of surgical stent according to the supported type. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 5 sets of dental models which have tooth supported edentulous area and tooth-tissue supported edentulous area were made. Dental model were scanned with model scanner, and CBCT was taken. CT data and model scan data were overlapped using In2Guide software, implant were virtually planned in the software. Surgical stents are fabricated by 3D printing. The implant fixture were installed using the surgical stent, CBCT were retaken. CBCT before surgery and after surgery were overlapped, and the differences (angle difference, coronal difference, apical difference) were evaluated using statistical analysis. RESULTS: In the assessment of the accuracy of surgical guides according to arch type, there are no statistically significant differences between maxilla and mandible. In the case of support type, tooth supported stents showed lower angle difference and length difference than tooth-tissue supported stents, which are statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Arch type does not affect the accuracy of surgical stents. But tooth support stents are more accurate than tooth-tissue support stents in the case of angle and length difference.

The accuracy of a 3D printing surgical guide determined by CBCT and model analysis

PURPOSE: The aim of this clinical study was to assess the accuracy of the implants placed using a universal digital surgical guide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 17 patients, 28 posterior implants were included in this study. The digital image of the soft tissue acquired from cast scan and hard tissue from CBCT have been superimposed and planned the location, length, diameter of the implant fixture. Then digital surgical guides were created using 3D printer. Each of angle deviations, coronal, apical, depth deviations of planned and actually placed implants were calculated using CBCT scans and casts. To compare implant positioning errors by CBCT scans and plaster casts, data were analyzed with independent samples t-test. RESULTS: The results of the implant positioning errors calculated by CBCT and casts were as follows. The means for CBCT analyses were: angle deviation: 4.74 ± 2.06°, coronal deviation: 1.37 ± 0.80 mm, and apical deviation: 1.77 ± 0.86 mm. The means for cast analyses were: angle deviation: 2.43 ± 1.13°, coronal deviation: 0.82 ± 0.44 mm, apical deviation: 1.19 ± 0.46 mm, and depth deviation: 0.03 ± 0.65 mm. There were statistically significant differences between the deviations of CBCT scans and cast. CONCLUSION: The model analysis showed lower deviation value comparing the CBCT analysis. The angle and length deviation value of the universal digital guide stent were accepted clinically.