Computer-guided implant removal: A clinical report.

Occasionally, osseointegrated dental implants must be removed because of complications such as malpositioning or screw fracture. This is most often accomplished with a surgical handpiece and trephine. However, a flap is often required to access and visualize the implants. This paper presents a treatment in which computer planning and a 3-dimensional-printed, custom fabricated, surgical guide was used to assist in implant removal. This technique simplified the procedure, allowed conservative removal of peri-implant bone, and permitted subsequent immediate implant replacement.

In Vivo Tooth-Supported Implant Surgical Guides Fabricated With Desktop Stereolithographic Printers: Fully Guided Surgery Is More Accurate Than Partially Guided Surgery.

PURPOSE: Desktop stereolithographic printers combined with intraoral scanning and implant planning software promise precise and cost-effective guided implant surgery. The purpose of the present study was to determine the overall range of accuracy of tooth-supported guided implant surgery using desktop printed stereolithographic guides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study comparing fully and partially guided implant surgery was conducted. Preoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scans were used to plan the implant sites. Surgical guides were then fabricated using a desktop stereolithographic 3-dimensional printer. Postoperative CBCT was used to evaluate the accuracy of placement. Deviations from the planned positions were used as the primary outcome variables. The planning software used, implant systems, and anterior/posterior positions were the secondary outcome variables. The differences between the planned and actual implant positions in the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual dimensions and buccolingual angulations were determined, and the accuracy was compared statistically using the 1-tail F-test (P = .01), box plots, and 95% confidence intervals for the mean. RESULTS: Sixteen partially edentulous patients requiring placement of 31 implants were included in the present study. The implant deviations from the planned positions for mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual dimensions and buccolingual angulations with the fully guided protocol (n = 20) were 0.17 ± 0.78 mm, 0.44 ± 0.78 mm, 0.23 ± 1.08 mm, -0.22 ± 1.44 mm, and -0.32° ± 2.36°, respectively. The corresponding implant deviations for the partially guided protocol (n = 11) were 0.33 ± 1.38 mm, -0.03 ± 1.59 mm, 0.62 ± 1.15 mm, -0.27 ± 1.61 mm, and 0.59° ± 6.83°. The difference between the variances for fully and partially guided surgery for the distal and angulation dimensions was statistically significant (P = .006 and P < .001, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found between the software programs. Anterior implants had less variation in deviation than posterior implants. CONCLUSIONS: Fully guided implant surgery is more accurate than partially guided implant surgery. Implant positional deviation is influenced by implant location but not implant systems or software. If possible, clinicians should use guided surgery protocols that allow placement of implants through a surgical guide.

How Accurate Are Implant Surgical Guides Produced With Desktop Stereolithographic 3-Dimentional Printers?

PURPOSE: The use of tooth-supported static stereolithographic guides has greatly improved the ability to ideally place implants. This study was designed to determine the accuracy of in office-printed implant surgical guides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 3shape Implant Studio, a treatment plan for implant placement for tooth 8 was developed using a digital intraoral scan from a Trios scanner and cone-beam computed tomography. Ten stereolithographic guides were printed using a Form2 3-dimensional printer. Pre- and post-implant insertion digital scans were used to determine distance and angulation differences in the mesiodistal and faciolingual positions of the implants compared with the planned position. RESULTS: The mean difference in mesiodistal direction at the alveolar crest between planned implants and placed implants was 0.28 mm (range, 0.05 to 0.62 mm) and the difference in the faciolingual direction was 0.49 mm (range, 0.08 to 0.72 mm). The mean mesiodistal angulation deviation was 0.84° (range, 0.08° to 4.48°) and the mean faciolingual angulation deviation was 3.37° (range, 1.12° to 6.43°). CONCLUSIONS: In-office fabricated stereolithographic implant surgical guides show similar accuracy to laboratory- or manufacturer-prepared guides. This technique provides a convenient and cost-effective means of assuring proper implant placement.

In-office fabrication of dental implant surgical guides using desktop stereolithographic printing and implant treatment planning software: A clinical report.

Guided surgery is accepted as the most accurate way to place an implant and predictably relate the implant to its definitive prosthesis, although few clinicians use it. However, recent developments in high-quality desktop 3-dimensional stereolithographic printers have led to the in-office fabrication of stereolithographic surgical guides at reduced cost. This clinical report demonstrates a protocol for using a cost-effective, in-office rapid prototyping technique to fabricate a surgical guide for dental implant placement.

An Assessment of Newly Identified Barriers to and Enablers for Prehospital Pediatric Pain Management.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the prevalence of newly identified barriers and enablers to prehospital narcotic analgesic administration in a sample of paramedics and determine whether these barriers and enablers differ between new and experienced paramedics. METHODS: We surveyed a convenience sample of paramedics from urban, suburban, and rural practice settings in an emergency medical services system. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe responses, and differences between new (≤5 years) and experienced (>5 years) providers were assessed. RESULTS: There were 127 surveys analyzed; 67% of our sample was experienced and 86% considered treating pain important. Notable barriers for analgesic administration include causing more pain from intravenous catheter insertion, parental influences, difficulty assessing pain, and worry about allergic reactions. Notable enablers include belief that analgesic administration is important, education to administer analgesics, and support from agency leadership. There were statistically significant differences between new and experienced providers in the distribution of responses for survey items regarding how the importance of treating pain in children was learned, overall comfort with pediatric patients, receiving negative responses from superiors about giving pediatric patients analgesics, and usefulness of the Broselow tape for dosing fentanyl for children. Other barriers and enablers were not significantly different between new and experienced providers. CONCLUSIONS: Top barriers to prehospital pediatric analgesic administration are related to skills and knowledge deficits, whereas enablers include support from agency leadership and personal views on analgesics. This information can be used to guide interventions to improve the management of pain in children.