International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
Impact of digital imaging acquisition extent and surgical guide size on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery in edentulous anterior maxillary sites: An in vitro pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Herber Valentin, Mainetti Gino, Bornstein Michael M, Kühl Sebastian, Dagassan-Berndt Dorothea
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This in vitro pilot study aimed to determine the impact of two different CBCT fields of view, intraoral scan areas and surgical template sizes on the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 implant sites in the anterior maxilla of 20 polyurethane models of partially edentulous arches were divided into four groups based on CBCT field of view and intraoral scan area. The groups used either a small (40 × 40 mm) or medium field of view (50 × 100 mm), a full-maxilla or partial intraoral scan area and a full or partial surgical guide. CBCT and intraoral scan data were registered for implant planning, and surgical templates (either supported by all the remaining teeth or only by teeth 11 and 23) were designed accordingly. The implants were randomly placed through the template in a fully guided manner. Postoperative surface scans were superimposed on the preoperative planning data to evaluate the angular and spatial deviation between the planned and inserted implants. Descriptive statistics were followed by a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the differences between the groups.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found when comparing the effect of the size of field of view, intraoral scan area and surgical template on the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings indicate that field of view size, intraoral scan area and surgical template dimensions do not significantly affect the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery in the partially edentulous anterior maxilla, supporting the application of As Low As Diagnostically Acceptable being Indication-oriented and Patient-specific principles.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 implant sites in the anterior maxilla of 20 polyurethane models of partially edentulous arches were divided into four groups based on CBCT field of view and intraoral scan area. The groups used either a small (40 × 40 mm) or medium field of view (50 × 100 mm), a full-maxilla or partial intraoral scan area and a full or partial surgical guide. CBCT and intraoral scan data were registered for implant planning, and surgical templates (either supported by all the remaining teeth or only by teeth 11 and 23) were designed accordingly. The implants were randomly placed through the template in a fully guided manner. Postoperative surface scans were superimposed on the preoperative planning data to evaluate the angular and spatial deviation between the planned and inserted implants. Descriptive statistics were followed by a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the differences between the groups.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found when comparing the effect of the size of field of view, intraoral scan area and surgical template on the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings indicate that field of view size, intraoral scan area and surgical template dimensions do not significantly affect the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery in the partially edentulous anterior maxilla, supporting the application of As Low As Diagnostically Acceptable being Indication-oriented and Patient-specific principles.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.