Journal of dentistry · 2025
Accuracy of two static computer-assisted implant surgery systems in partially edentulous patients: A randomized clinical trial using intraoral scan data.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Böse Mats Wernfried Heinrich, Atay Ece, Beuer Florian, Bruhnke Maria, Pieralli Stefano, Herklotz Insa
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare implant deviations between two static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) systems in partially edentulous patients using intraoral scan data.
METHODS: Fully guided dental implant placements were planned using two implant systems, Straumann Bone Level Tapered (S-BLT) and CAMLOG SCREW LINE Promote plus (C-SL), with respective planning software (S-BLT: coDiagnostiX; C-SL: SMOP). Intraoperative scans were performed after implant placement and compared to virtual implant positions in Geomagic Control X (GCX) a software for three-dimensional (3D) quality control. Deviations were analyzed in a coordinate system (x-, y-, z-axis) and total deviations (entry point, apex, and angular deviations) were compared. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.0125.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients received 80 implants placed by 13 surgeons with varying experience in sCAIS. Deviations from 75 datasets were evaluated. Mean 3D deviation at the entry point was 0.64 ± 0.25 mm for S-BLT and 0.75 ± 0.33 mm for C-SL. At the apex, the mean 3D deviation was 1.00 ± 0.40 mm for S-BLT and 1.26 ± 0.68 mm for C-SL. The mean angular deviation was 3.22 ± 2.12° for S-BLT and 3.80 ± 2.81° for C-SL. No significant differences were observed between systems, surgeon experience or implant location (all p > 0.0125).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the drill-body guided (C-SL) and drill-handle guided (S-BLT) systems provide comparable and predictable outcomes in fully guided implant placements. No system or planning software was found to be superior.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: sCAIS ensures predictable results in terms of accuracy in implant positioning, compensating for varying levels of surgical experience.
METHODS: Fully guided dental implant placements were planned using two implant systems, Straumann Bone Level Tapered (S-BLT) and CAMLOG SCREW LINE Promote plus (C-SL), with respective planning software (S-BLT: coDiagnostiX; C-SL: SMOP). Intraoperative scans were performed after implant placement and compared to virtual implant positions in Geomagic Control X (GCX) a software for three-dimensional (3D) quality control. Deviations were analyzed in a coordinate system (x-, y-, z-axis) and total deviations (entry point, apex, and angular deviations) were compared. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.0125.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients received 80 implants placed by 13 surgeons with varying experience in sCAIS. Deviations from 75 datasets were evaluated. Mean 3D deviation at the entry point was 0.64 ± 0.25 mm for S-BLT and 0.75 ± 0.33 mm for C-SL. At the apex, the mean 3D deviation was 1.00 ± 0.40 mm for S-BLT and 1.26 ± 0.68 mm for C-SL. The mean angular deviation was 3.22 ± 2.12° for S-BLT and 3.80 ± 2.81° for C-SL. No significant differences were observed between systems, surgeon experience or implant location (all p > 0.0125).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the drill-body guided (C-SL) and drill-handle guided (S-BLT) systems provide comparable and predictable outcomes in fully guided implant placements. No system or planning software was found to be superior.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: sCAIS ensures predictable results in terms of accuracy in implant positioning, compensating for varying levels of surgical experience.