Clinical oral investigations · 2026
Impact of clinician experience on the accuracy of static guided implant placement in post-extraction sockets: a cadaver 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.
Pera Francesco, Vocaturo Camillo, Stendardo Veronica, Crupi Armando, Bezzi Marta, Gibello Umberto, Roccuzzo Andrea
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of s-CAIS in immediate post-extraction sockets using a cadaver model and to assess whether operator experience influences implant placement precision and surgical time.
METHODS: Twenty teeth (incisors: 9; premolars: 8; molars: 3) were extracted from two fresh defrozen cadaver heads, and implants were planned using a digital workflow integrating cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning. Custom-made tooth-supported surgical guides were fabricated and used by two operators: one expert (> 5 years of experience) and one non-expert (< 5 years of experience), both without prior guided surgery experience. Twenty implants were placed. Post-operative scans were taken and superimposed to the pre-operative plans to measure global head deviation, global tip deviation, and angular deviation. Data were stratified by operator experience, jaw location, and implant position.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between expert and non-expert operators in head deviation (1.26 ± 0.51 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.63 mm, p = 0.29), tip deviation (1.70 ± 0.50 mm vs. 1.81 ± 0.53 mm, p = 0.64), angular deviation (3.83 ± 1.90° vs. 3.32 ± 1.69°, p = 0.54), or surgical time (3.60 ± 1.45 min vs. 4.31 ± 2.67 min, p = 0.84). Anterior implants showed significantly greater head (1.69 ± 0.57 mm vs. 1.13 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.03) and tip deviations (1.99 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.04) compared to posterior implants. Mandibular implants required longer surgical time than maxillary implants (4.90 ± 2.37 min vs. 2.87 ± 1.01 min, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this cadaver study, s-CAIS demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets, with operator experience not significantly influencing placement precision or surgical time. Static guided surgery may standardize outcomes and support surgical training in implant dentistry.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of s-CAIS in a cadaver model demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets irrespective of operator experience. Its use might be considered for clinical training sessions.
METHODS: Twenty teeth (incisors: 9; premolars: 8; molars: 3) were extracted from two fresh defrozen cadaver heads, and implants were planned using a digital workflow integrating cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning. Custom-made tooth-supported surgical guides were fabricated and used by two operators: one expert (> 5 years of experience) and one non-expert (< 5 years of experience), both without prior guided surgery experience. Twenty implants were placed. Post-operative scans were taken and superimposed to the pre-operative plans to measure global head deviation, global tip deviation, and angular deviation. Data were stratified by operator experience, jaw location, and implant position.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between expert and non-expert operators in head deviation (1.26 ± 0.51 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.63 mm, p = 0.29), tip deviation (1.70 ± 0.50 mm vs. 1.81 ± 0.53 mm, p = 0.64), angular deviation (3.83 ± 1.90° vs. 3.32 ± 1.69°, p = 0.54), or surgical time (3.60 ± 1.45 min vs. 4.31 ± 2.67 min, p = 0.84). Anterior implants showed significantly greater head (1.69 ± 0.57 mm vs. 1.13 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.03) and tip deviations (1.99 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.04) compared to posterior implants. Mandibular implants required longer surgical time than maxillary implants (4.90 ± 2.37 min vs. 2.87 ± 1.01 min, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this cadaver study, s-CAIS demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets, with operator experience not significantly influencing placement precision or surgical time. Static guided surgery may standardize outcomes and support surgical training in implant dentistry.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of s-CAIS in a cadaver model demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets irrespective of operator experience. Its use might be considered for clinical training sessions.