An In Vitro Model to Evaluate the Accuracy of Guided Surgery Systems.

Purpose: An in vitro model was developed and tested to evaluate the precision of guided implant systems. The accuracy of dental implants placed with a flapless technique was analyzed using a stereolithographic template in vitro. Differences between the virtual and actual positions of the implants we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants Vol. 27; no. 4; pp. 824 - 832
Autores principales: Soares, Márcio Macedo, Harari, Nassim David, Cardoso, Eduardo Seixas, Manso, Marcelo Corrêa, Conz, Márcio Baltazar, Vidigal Jr., Guaracilei Maciel
Formato: diagnostic images pictorial research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Quintessence Publishing Company Inc. 2012
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: An in vitro model was developed and tested to evaluate the precision of guided implant systems. The accuracy of dental implants placed with a flapless technique was analyzed using a stereolithographic template in vitro. Differences between the virtual and actual positions of the implants were measured. Materials and Methods: Six polyurethane mandibles with artificial silicone gums were fabricated, and each was fitted with an individual computed tomography (CT) guide. Stereolithographic guides were created using computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing technology and virtual planning software. All stereolithographicguides had four holes for stabilization pins and three holes for cylindric implants. After implant placement,the mandibles were subjected to another CT scan to compare the actual implant positions with the planned positions. The pre- and postimplantation CT images were superimposed using digital processing image software to evaluate the linear and angular deviations between the virtual planning data and the surgical results. Results: The mean angular discrepancy between the virtual and actual positions of the 18 placed implants was 2.16 ± 0.92 degrees. Among the placed implants, 66.7% were situated a mean of 0.38 ± 0.03 m mapical to the planned vertical position, and 33.3% were situated 0.39 ± 0.03 mm coronal to the planned position. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, this tool showed promising accuracy in virtual implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:824-831.