Factors that Influence Direction Deviation in Freehand Implant Placement.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study investigates the accuracy of freehand implant placement and whether the factors of presence of an adjacent tooth, implant quadrant, number of missing teeth, and location of the implant site influence direction and angulation deviations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: According to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 112 implants from 75 partially edentulous patients were recruited for this retrospective study. The implants were inserted using a freehand approach by one experienced clinician (right-handed). The full thickness flap was elevated to expose the alveolar bone in the implant surgery, and the implant crown consisted of an all-ceramic restoration retained by cement. The planned implant position was preoperatively determined using implant planning software. The postoperative implant position was determined by analyzing the alignment after optically scanning the dentition using a specifically designed registration model in Geomagic Studio software. The deviations between the planned and postoperative implant positions were then calculated. The outcomes included direction and angulation deviations between the planned and postoperative implant positions. All data were analyzed by ANOVA, Bonferroni correction, regression analysis, and one-sample t-tests conducted using SPSS. RESULTS: The 3D deviations between planned and postoperative implant positions were 1.22 ± 0.63 mm at the entrance point, 1.91 ± 1.17 mm at the apical point, and 7.93 ± 5.56° in angulation. The presence of adjacent teeth influenced deviations in the mesiodistal (F = 4.338, p = 0.006) and buccolingual directions (F = 3.017, p = 0.033) at the entrance point and mesiodistal angulation (F = 7.979, p < 0.001). The quadrant influenced deviation in the buccolingual direction at the apical point (F = 6.093, p = 0.001) and buccolingual angulation (F = 6.457, p < 0.001). The number of missing teeth had no effect on deviations of direction and angulation of implants. The location of the implant site affected the deviation in the buccolingual direction at the entrance point (F = 3.096, p = 0.049) and the mesiodistal direction at the apical point (F = 3.724, p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: The 3D accuracy of freehand-placed implants could be acceptable in clinical situations. The results showed that the presence of an adjacent tooth and the quadrant and the location of the implant site influenced the direction and angulation deviations of the implant position; however, the factor of number of missing teeth did not.

Accuracy of the evaluation of implant position using a completely digital registration method compared with a radiographic method.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional radiographic methods are widely used to evaluate the clinical accuracy of implant position. However, such methods require a second computerized tomography (CT) scan and manual registration between presurgical and postsurgical CT data. The alignment errors cannot be calculated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to introduce a completely digital registration method to evaluate the clinical accuracy of implant position. The digital registration method was then compared with the radiographic method in evaluating accuracy. Some of the alignment errors produced in the digital registration procedures were recorded. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 32 implants from 19 patients with sufficient bone volume were enrolled in the study, and all implant surgeries were conducted by one experienced practitioner. Before the surgery, a cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scan was made for each patient along with a diagnostic impression to design the ideal implant position using the Simplant software. After the surgery, the postsurgical implant position was determined using an optical scan of the dentition cast and a series of custom registration models (the digital registration method). A simulated cylinder was designed using the Geomagic Studio software to represent the implant, and the deviation of the ideal and postsurgical implant position was calculated. The accuracy evaluated by the 2 methods was also compared. The parameters of the entrance point, apical point, and axis were recorded for each implant. A part of the alignment errors in the digital registration was calculated automatically and recorded. One sample t test and paired t test were conducted by using a statistical software program. RESULTS: The mean deviation between the ideal and postsurgical implant positions evaluated using the digital registration method was 0.84 ±0.57 mm for the entrance point, 1.03 ±0.78 mm for the apical point, and 4.52 ±2.37 degrees for the angulation. No significant difference was found between the accuracy evaluated by the digital registration method and the radiographic method (P>.05). In the digital registration procedure, the alignment error was 0.03 mm for the registration model and 0.29 mm for the dentition. Significant differences were found in the alignment procedure of the impression cylinder (P<.001) and dentition (P<.001). The average positive and negative errors were +0.09 and -0.19 mm for the simulated cylinder of the ideal implant and +0.08 and -0.15 mm for the simulated cylinder of the postsurgical implant. CONCLUSIONS: The precision of the digital registration method could be accepted in clinical applications. No significant difference was found between the digital registration method and the radiographic method in evaluating the clinical accuracy of the implant position. The digital registration method was able to control and minimize the alignment errors produced during data processing.

The immediate implant and delayed restoration in maxillary esthetic zone: A case report and literature review / 口腔疾病防治

Objective@#To investigate the effects of the related factors on the aesthetic implant restoration of anterior maxilla with a typical case report. @*Methods @#A patient, who was failed with metal-ceramic bridge half year, required an implant restoration. Before treatment, a thorough clinical and radiological examination and a SAC classification were done. The teeth were extracted in mininal truama without flap reflection, and implants were inserted with delayed restoration. A provisional restoration supported by temporary abutment was placed to guide the development of the soft tissues. Then the final impression with the custom-made transcopings was made. And a screwretention metal-resin bridge was made with CAD/CAM titanium framework.@*Results@#During follow-up the dental implants and provisional restoration provided the patient with good esthetics, pronunciation and chewing function.@*Conclusion@# Many factors may affect the success rates and asethetic effect of anterior implant restorations. Indications, pre-surgical assessments, treatments are keys to aesthetic implant restoration.