Although guided implant surgery is widely practiced, clinical studies examining the differences in accuracy between implanting systems that use the same surgical guide are currently lacking. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of different dental implanting systems on positioning accuracy using a uniform type of stereolithographic surgical guide to account for cumulative errors in guide production. One hundred BEGO Semados® S implants (Group A) and ninety-one NobelActive® implants (Group B) were inserted into patients using the same type of guide. The accuracy was assessed by matching the preoperative and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The implant shoulder, tip, depth and angular deviation were registered. Statistically significant differences between groups were determined using student’s t-test, bivariate correlation test and generalized estimating equation. The angular deviation was 3.16±1.74° in Group A and 2.58±1.41° in Group B (P=0.013 ); the depth deviation was 0.44±0.23mm in GroupA and 0.51±0.22mm in Group B (P=0.032). In terms of vertical accuracy, the Bego implant system is superior to the Nobel implant system using the same type of surgical guide, while the angle accuracy is opposite. Therefore, it is important to control the depth when using the template guided surgery in Nobel implant system. Similarly, angle control should be emphasized in Bego implant system. Measurements of the deviations provide the basis for a clinical reference that will be useful in preoperative analysis for improvement of the safety and accuracy of guided implant surgical procedures.
Comparison of positioning accuracy between two different implant systems using mucosa-supported surgical templates: a retrospective clinical study
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Fudong Zhu, Mengyun Mao, Haihua Zhu, Yao Chen, Jia You, Haisong Pan; Comparison of positioning accuracy between two different implant systems using mucosa-supported surgical templates: a retrospective clinical study. J Oral Implantol 2021; doi: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00283
Download citation file: