Clinical oral implants research · 2024
Accuracy of open-sleeved vs. closed-sleeved static computer-assisted implant systems in immediate maxillary molar implant placement: An in vitro study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chen Zhaozhao, Li Junying, Wei Chen Xuan, Mendonca Gustavo, Wang Hom-Lay
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is (1) to compare the accuracy of an open-sleeved static computer-assisted implant system (sCAIS) with a closed-sleeve sCAIS and free-hand approach in immediate implant placement (IIP) of maxillary molar sites and (2) to investigate the influence of socket morphology on these approaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety partially edentulous duplicated maxillary models simulating three different molar sockets (type A, B, and C based on Smith and Tarnow's classification) were investigated. Three modalities, including sCAIS with open-sleeves, sCAIS with closed-sleeves, and free-hand approach, were applied separately to 30 models with 120 sockets. A customized Python script automatically measured the deviations between the virtual and actual implant positions for all 360 implants.
RESULTS: The 3D deviations of sCAIS were significantly influenced by the socket and sleeve types. Both guided groups exhibited significantly less deviation than the free-hand approach. Type A and C sockets resulted in better implant positions than type B socket sites. In type B sockets, the open-sleeve group achieved significantly less deviation compared to the closed-sleeve group, with respect to apical global (1.34 ± 0.53 vs. 1.84 ± 0.59 mm), coronal horizontal (0.68 ± 0.36 vs. 0.93 ± 0.34 mm), apical horizontal (1.21 ± 0.59 vs. 1.74 ± 0.63 mm), and angular (3.30 ± 1.41 vs. 4.41 ± 1.96°) deviations.
CONCLUSIONS: Guided implant surgery significantly reduces deviations during molar IIP compared to free-hand procedures. Furthermore, the use of open-sleeve sCAIS appears to be more effective in minimizing deviations in type B sockets when compared with the closed-sleeve guided system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety partially edentulous duplicated maxillary models simulating three different molar sockets (type A, B, and C based on Smith and Tarnow's classification) were investigated. Three modalities, including sCAIS with open-sleeves, sCAIS with closed-sleeves, and free-hand approach, were applied separately to 30 models with 120 sockets. A customized Python script automatically measured the deviations between the virtual and actual implant positions for all 360 implants.
RESULTS: The 3D deviations of sCAIS were significantly influenced by the socket and sleeve types. Both guided groups exhibited significantly less deviation than the free-hand approach. Type A and C sockets resulted in better implant positions than type B socket sites. In type B sockets, the open-sleeve group achieved significantly less deviation compared to the closed-sleeve group, with respect to apical global (1.34 ± 0.53 vs. 1.84 ± 0.59 mm), coronal horizontal (0.68 ± 0.36 vs. 0.93 ± 0.34 mm), apical horizontal (1.21 ± 0.59 vs. 1.74 ± 0.63 mm), and angular (3.30 ± 1.41 vs. 4.41 ± 1.96°) deviations.
CONCLUSIONS: Guided implant surgery significantly reduces deviations during molar IIP compared to free-hand procedures. Furthermore, the use of open-sleeve sCAIS appears to be more effective in minimizing deviations in type B sockets when compared with the closed-sleeve guided system.