Implant Positioning Errors in Freehand and Computer-Aided Placement Methods: A Single-Blind Clinical Comparative Study

Arisan V., Karabuda C. Z., Mumcu E., Oezdemir T.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, cilt.28, ss.190-204, 2013 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 28
  • Basım Tarihi: 2013
  • Doi Numarası: 10.11607/jomi.2691
  • Dergi Adı: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.190-204
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: implant position, positioning error, malposition, guided surgery, implant prosthodontics, stereolithography, FINITE-ELEMENT-ANALYSIS, GOODNESS-OF-FIT, DENTAL IMPLANTS, PERI-IMPLANTITIS, LOGISTIC-REGRESSION, KERATINIZED MUCOSA, ENDOSSEOUS IMPLANT, PARTIAL EDENTULISM, SURGICAL GUIDE, FOLLOW-UP
  • Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Purpose: Simultaneous insertion of multiple implants may exhibit suboptimal positions, especially in edentulous jaws considered for a fixed restoration. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of and confounding factors in implant positioning errors related to the use of freehand and computer-aided treatment methods. Materials and Methods: A total of 353 implants were placed in 54 patients with at least one edentulous jaw using freehand and computer-aided methods involving 16 mucosa- and 12 bone-supported single- and multiple-type stereolithographic surgical guides. At the stage of prosthesis delivery, a blinded examiner evaluated seven positioning error criteria. Results were analyzed by chi-square test and logistic regression. Results: Interproximal emergence (OR = 2.82, P < .0001), insufficient interimplant distance (OR = 1.42, P < .0001), and improper parallelism (OR = 1.24, P = .001) errors were significantly higher in implants placed by the freehand method. The highest probability of positioning error (88%) was associated with the use of the freehand method, whereas the lowest (6%) was associated with single- type, mucosa- supported guides with other significant confounding factors. Conclusion: Utilizing computer-aided methods may alleviate the occurrence of implant positioning errors that are frequently associated with the freehand method. The use of software planning with enhanced viewing capabilities and single- type, mucosa-supported stereolithographic surgical guides in suitable patients minimizes errors.