Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study

  1. Jacob Horwitz1,2,
  2. Otman Zuabi1,
  3. Eli E. Machtei1,2

Article first published online: 10 JUN 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01748.x

Issue

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Volume 20, Issue 10, pages 1156–1162, October 2009

Additional Information

How to Cite

Horwitz, J., Zuabi, O. and Machtei, E. E. (2009), Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 20: 1156–1162. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01748.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    School of Graduate Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel

  2. 2

    Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel

*Correspondence to: Dr Jacob Horwitz School of Graduate Dentistry Department of Periodontology Rambam Health Care Campus PO Box 9602 Haifa 31096 Israel Tel.: +972 4 854 2983 Fax: +972 4 854 3057 e-mail: J_horwitz@rambam.health.gov.il, jhorwitz@comm.net.il

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 8 SEP 2009
  2. Article first published online: 10 JUN 2009
  3. Date: Accepted 9 March 2009

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (735K)

Keywords:

  • computer-assisted surgery;
  • computed tomography;
  • dental implant;
  • in vitro;
  • surgical template

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of computer-assisted 3D planning and implant insertion using computerized tomography (CT).

Materials and methods: Nine implants were planned on pre-operative CTs of six resin models, which were acquired with radiographic templates, using a planning software (E implants). Each resin model contained three pre-existing control implants (C implants). Radiographic templates were converted into operative guides containing 4.8-mm-diameter titanium sleeves. A single set of insertable sleeves was used for consecutively drilling the six models, followed by implant insertion through the guide sleeves. Models were further divided into group A (the first three models) and group B (the last three models). Post-operative CTs were used to compare implant positions with pre-operative planned positions. Statistical analysis included the Mann–Whitney U test for E and C implants and the Wilcoxon's signed ranks test for groups A and B.

Results: The mean apex depth deviations for E and C implants [0.49 mm±0.36 standard deviation (SD) and 0.32 mm±0.21 SD, respectively], and the mean apex radial deviations (0.63 mm±0.38 SD and 0.49 mm±0.17 SD, respectively) were similar (P>0.05). The mean angulation deviations for E and C implants were 2.17±1.06°SD and 1.33±0.69°SD, P<0.05. E implant deviations of all the parameters in group A were significantly smaller than E implant deviations in group B.

Conclusions: Computer-assisted implant planning and insertion provides good accuracy. Deviations are mainly related to system and reproducibility errors. Multiple use of drills and titanium sleeves significantly reduces system accuracy.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (735K)