The impact of the fabrication method on the three-dimensional accuracy of an implant surgery template. Issue 6 (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Matta, Ragai-Edward; Bergauer, Bastian; Adler, Werner; Wichmann, Manfred; Nickenig, Hans-Joachim
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 45:Issue 6(2017)
• Page Start: 804
• Page End: 808
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Dental implant -- Surgical guide template -- CAD/CAM surgical template -- Stereolithography template -- Computer-aided surgery -- Guided implant surgery; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- surgery -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.514
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.02.015
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The use of a surgical template is a well-established method in advanced implantology. In addition to conventional fabrication, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) work-flow provides an opportunity to engineer implant drilling templates via a three-dimensional printer. In order to transfer the virtual planning to the oral situation, a highly accurate surgical guide is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the fabrication method on the three-dimensional accuracy. Materials and methods: The same virtual planning based on a scanned plaster model was used to fabricate a conventional thermo-formed and a three-dimensional printed surgical guide for each of 13 patients (single tooth implants). Both templates were acquired individually on the respective plaster model using an optical industrial white-light scanner (ATOS II, GOM mbh, Braunschweig, Germany), and the virtual datasets were superimposed. Using the three-dimensional geometry of the implant sleeve, the deviation between both surgical guides was evaluated. Results: The mean discrepancy of the angle was 3.479° (standard deviation, 1.904°) based on data from 13 patients. Concerning the three-dimensional position of the implant sleeve, the highest deviation was in the Z-axis at 0.594 mm. The mean deviation of the Euclidian distance, dxyz, was 0.864 mm. Conclusion: Although the two different fabrication methods delivered statistically significantly different templates, the deviations ranged within a decimillimeter span. Both methods are appropriate for clinical use.