BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the opportunities of guided implant surgery compared to conventional implant surgery. METHODS: For this purpose 7 mandibles were prepared, which were sectioned in order to have an edentulous area. Seven half-mandibles were assigned to guided implant surgery group (test) and an equal number to conventional surgery group (control). RESULTS: The results of the test group were as follows: mean vertical implant level discrepancy 0.44±0.29 mm, buccolingual implant position discrepancy 1.31±0.65 mm, mesio-distal implant position discrepancy 0.68±0.42 mm, implant apex discrepancy 1.92±0.92 mm, mean distance between the two fixtures 0.26±0.19 mm. The results of the control group are as follows: mean vertical implant level discrepancy 1.1±0.4 mm, mean bucco-lingual implant position discrepancy 2.14±0.89 mm, mean mesio-distal implant position discrepancy 1.7±0.79 mm, mean implant apex discrepancy 2.91±0.50 mm, mean distance between the two fixtures 0.78±0.63 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of an experimental set up, the results may demonstrate how the use of guided implant surgery may be a valid help for the clinician for a more accurate and safe implant placement.
Accuracy of guided implant surgery: An experimental set-up
Tonoli G.;Amaroli A.;de Angelis N.
2019-01-01
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the opportunities of guided implant surgery compared to conventional implant surgery. METHODS: For this purpose 7 mandibles were prepared, which were sectioned in order to have an edentulous area. Seven half-mandibles were assigned to guided implant surgery group (test) and an equal number to conventional surgery group (control). RESULTS: The results of the test group were as follows: mean vertical implant level discrepancy 0.44±0.29 mm, buccolingual implant position discrepancy 1.31±0.65 mm, mesio-distal implant position discrepancy 0.68±0.42 mm, implant apex discrepancy 1.92±0.92 mm, mean distance between the two fixtures 0.26±0.19 mm. The results of the control group are as follows: mean vertical implant level discrepancy 1.1±0.4 mm, mean bucco-lingual implant position discrepancy 2.14±0.89 mm, mean mesio-distal implant position discrepancy 1.7±0.79 mm, mean implant apex discrepancy 2.91±0.50 mm, mean distance between the two fixtures 0.78±0.63 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of an experimental set up, the results may demonstrate how the use of guided implant surgery may be a valid help for the clinician for a more accurate and safe implant placement.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
