Fogorvosi szemle, 2016 (109. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)
2016-06-01 / 2. szám
68 FOGORVOSI SZEMLE ■ 109. évf. 2. sz. 2016. and angular deviation of implants placed using CT-generated surgical guides. J Craniofac Surg. 2011 ; 22: 1755-1761. 21. Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE, McGlumphy EA, Rosenstiel SF: Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomographyderived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67: 394-401. 22. Pettersson A, Kero T, Gillot L, Cannas B, Faldt J, Soderberg R, et al.: Accuracy of CAD/CAM-guided surgical template implant surgery on human cadavers: Part I. J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103: 334-342. 23. Pettersson A, Komiyama A, Hultin M, Nasstrom K, Klinge B: Accuracy of virtually planned and template guided implant surgery on edentate patients. Clin Implant Dent Retat Res. 2012; 14: 527- 537. 24. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M: A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15: 667-676. 25. Platzer S, Bertha G, Heschl A, Wegscheider WA, Lorenzoni M: Three-dimensional accuracy of guided implant placement: indirect assessment of clinical outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Retat Res. 2013; 15: 724-734. 26. Ruppin J, Popovic A, Strauss M, Spuntrup E, Steiner A, Stoll C: Evaluation of the accuracy of three different computer-aided surgery systems in dental implantology: optical tracking vs. stereolithographic splint systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 709-716. 27. Soares MM, Harari ND, Cardoso ES, Manso MC, Conz MB, Vidigal GM, Jr.: An in vitro model to evaluate the accuracy of guided surgery systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 824-831. 28. Tahmaseb A, De Clerck R, Aartman I, Wismeijer D: Digital protocol for reference-based guided surgery and immediate loading: a prospective clinical study. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 1258-1270. 29. Tahmaseb A, De Clerck R, Eckert S, Wismeijer D: Referencebased digital concept to restore partially edentulous patients following an immediate loading protocol: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 707-717. 30. Tahmaseb A, van de Weijden JJ, Mercelis P, De Clerck R, Wismeijer D: Parameters of passive fit using a new technique to mill implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study of a novel three-dimensional force measurement-misfit method. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 247-257. 31. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W: Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl: 25-42. 32. Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, Hirsch E, Schutyser F, Quirynen M, et al.: Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontot. 2007; 34: 816-821. 33. Van Steenberghe D, Naert I, Andersson M, Brajnovic I, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Suetens P: A custom template and definitive prosthesis allowing immediate implant loading in the maxilla: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 663-670. 34. Vasak C, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Strbac G, Schemper M, Zechner W: Computed tomography-based evaluation of template (NobelGuide)-guided implant positions: a prospective radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 ; 22: 1157-1163. 35. Vercruyssen M, De Laat A, Coucke W, Quirynen M: An RCT comparing patient-centred outcome variables of guided surgery (bone or mucosa supported) with conventional implant placement. J Clin Periodontot. 2014; 41: 724-732. 36. Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M: Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26 Suppl 11: 69-76. 37. Viegas VN, Dutra V, Pagnoncelli RM, de Oliveira MG: Transference of virtual planning and planning over biomedical prototypes for dental implant placement using guided surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 290-295. 38. Widmann G, Stoffner R, Schullian P, Widmann R, Keiler M, Zangerl A, et al.: Comparison of the accuracy of invasive and noninvasive registration methods for image-guided oral implant surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 491-498. Barrak I, Varga E Jr, Piffkó J Navigation in implantology: Accuracy assessment regarding the literature Our objective was to assess the literature regarding the accuracy of the different static guided systems. After applying electronic literature search we found 661 articles. After reviewing 139 articles, the authors chose 52 articles for full-text evaluation. 24 studies involved accuracy measurements. Fourteen of our selected references were clinical and ten of them were in vitro (modell or cadaver). Variance-analysis (Tukey’s post-hoc test; p < 0,05) was conducted to summarize the selected publications. Regarding 2819 results the average mean error at the entry point was 0,98 mm. At the level of the apex the average deviation was 1,29 mm while the mean of the angular deviation was 3,96°. Significant difference could be observed between the two methods of implant placement (partially and fully guided sequence) in terms of deviation at the entry point, apex and angular deviation. Different levels of quality and quantity of evidence were available for assessing the accuracy of the different computer-assisted implant placement. The rapidly evolving field of digital dentistry and the new developments will further improve the accuracy of guided implant placement. In the interest of being able to draw dependable conclusions and for the further evaluation of the parameters used for accuracy measurements, randomized, controlled single or multi-centered clinical trials are necessary. Keywords: computer planning, dental implants, guided surgery, surgical guide
