Abstract
Purpose
To investigate whether inexperienced users applying a static navigation system can perform in-vitro a fully guided implant placement protocol and achieve similar results in terms of accuracy compared to experienced clinicians.
Methods
Based on 36 identical resin models, a computer-assisted implant planning was performed and a surgical guide was produced accordingly. Three study groups were composed with 12 operators, each: control group with experienced surgeons (DOC), test group 1 with dental technicians (TEC) and test group 2 with non-specialists (OFC). Using a fully guided drilling protocol, two implants were placed into each of the 36 models. Subsequently, the differences between the virtually planned and final implant positions were determined and the transfer accuracy was evaluated.
Results
For the control group DOC, the mean value of axial deviation was 1.90 ± 1.15 degrees, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant base 0.52 ± 0.33 mm, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant tip 0.76 ± 0.39 mm and for vertical deviation at the implant tip − 0.11 ± 0.51 mm. For corresponding parameters, the mean values of test group TEC were 1.99 ± 0.87 degrees, 0.42 ± 0.21 mm, 0.68 ± 0.30 mm and − 0.03 ± 0.33 mm and for test group OFC 2.29 ± 1.17 degrees, 0.63 ± 0.35 mm, 0.89 ± 0.43 mm and − 0.24 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. The results did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the control and the 2 test groups (p˃0.05).
Conclusion
The results of the present in-vitro study demonstrated that inexperienced users applying a static navigation system can perform a fully guided implant placement protocol and achieve similar results in terms of accuracy compared to experienced clinicians in this specific in vitro setup.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
The use of static navigation systems in implant dentistry to transfer a virtually planned implant position to the clinical site is established and has been studied very well [1,2,3]. Predictable treatment results and the reduction of intraoperative complications even with complex cases are considered advantages of this concept [4, 5]. The so-called transfer accuracy (TA) is a decisive set of parameters to evaluate the reliability of guided implant placement systems, determining the difference between the virtually planned and the clinically placed implant position. The TA demonstrates how accurately the virtually planned implant position was transferred to the clinical surgical site. The availability of static navigation systems poses the question if users with little or even no experience in implant dentistry can achieve good clinical results, i.e., high accuracy with the help of drilling guides. Only few scientific studies investigated this relation and their results are controversial. For example, clinical and in vitro studies reported that less experienced users benefit from the use of drill templates and significantly improve accuracy values [6, 7]. In contrast, clinical studies found that the degree of experience is not a significant factor influencing the accuracy [8,9,10]. It was also reported that inexperienced users achieved inferior results in terms of TA [11].
This shows that no clear conclusion can be drawn and further investigation is needed. Thus, the aim of this in-vitro study was to assess the influence of the operator´s clinical expertise and practical experience on TA in guided dental implantation.
Methods
The experiments were conducted using maxillary polyurethane models of the type Maxilla S1, (GOS® GmbH, Northeim, Germany). After a quality control, a reference model was determined and used for the creation of a 3-dimensional X-ray image using cone beam computer tomography (CBCT). The parameters of the CBCT scanner Veraview X800 (J. MORITA® MFG. CORP., Kyoto, Japan) were set as follows: Voltage 79.0 kV; Amps 1.9 mA; exposure time 9.4 s; original angle 0.0°; FOV 88.125 × 88.125 × 80.500 mm; voxel size 0.125 mm, slice thickness 1.000 mm, slice interval 1.000 mm. Subsequently, the obtained data set was exported as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) file format with maximum resolution. The reference model was then scanned with a desktop scanner (Straumann® Desktop Scanner 7-Series, Dental Wings® GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany) and the resulting surface scan was exported as a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file. Both data sets were superimposed using a planning software (coDiagnostiX®, Dental Wings® GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany) and virtual implant planning was performed. One implant was planned as a single-tooth gap in region 15 and another implant as a free-end situation in region 26. Following that, the drill template was designed and manufactured by an experienced user using the Objet 260 3D printer (Stratasys® Ltd., Rehovot, Israel). The material OBJET MED610 Biocompatible, Clear, (Stratasys® GmbH, Rheinmünster, Germany) validated for this process was used. Original Straumann® T-sleeves, Ø 5 mm, height 5 mm made of steel (Straumann Group, Basel, CH) were used as drill sleeves.
Thirty-six test persons were included in the study, forming three equal groups of operators (Table 1).
All groups consisted of 50% female and 50% male operators. The control group (DOC) consisted of eight oral surgeons and four oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Both professional titles represent a high level of specialized expertise and practical clinical experience in the field of implant dentistry and surgery, respectively. Test group 1 (TEC) consisted of five dental technicians and seven master dental technicians. Dental technicians have limited theoretical knowledge but no clinical or practical experience with static navigation systems. The test group 2 (OFC) consisted of twelve office workers. The operators of this group were non-clinicians and have neither dental nor dental technical training. Conducting the experimental implant placement was the first contact with implant dentistry resp. guided surgery for them.
Implementation of the experimental implant placement
All operators performed the experimental implant placement separately under the same conditions and were individually instructed by the investigator. After a technical briefing on the use of the surgical motor and the contra-angle handpiece, the experiment was carried out. A training video (Straumann® Guided Surgery – Leading Your Way In Your Treatment, Straumann Group, Basel, CH) provided by the manufacturer of the implant system showing the clinical application of the guided-implant systems was shown to the operators. In this way, the individual steps of the experimental implant placement were successively demonstrated. Afterwards, the operators autonomously practically performed the demonstrated steps and were supervised by the investigator. The investigator documented the drilling procedures and implant placements of each operator. However, he did not influence this procedure by any kinds of comments or practical interactions.
A total of 72 dummy implants with a tapered design, with a diameter of 4.1 mm and a length of 10 mm (Straumann® BLT implants, Roxolid® SLActive, Straumann Group, Basel, CH) were used for the experimental implant placement. Each operator placed the implants into a separate jaw model, but all operators used the same drill template. A surgical motor with contra-angle handpiece was used for preparation, profile drilling and tapping. Implants were inserted manually using the surgical hand ratchet from the surgical cassette provided. The drilling protocol was performed according to the specifications of the manufacturer’s instructions. The surgical instruments used were the Straumann® Guided Surgery Basic Cassette (Straumann Group, Basel, CH) for guided implant placement. The drills and the profile drill of this system have a physical depth stop. The drills were replaced after 10 times of use according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. For the experimental implant placement, the operators used the Straumann® Surgical Motor Pro with the contra-angle handpiece Ti-Max X-SG20L (NSK® NAKANISHI INC., Tochigi, Japan). For implant placement, the surgical motor settings for the drills with diameters of 2.2 mm, 2.8 mm, and 3.5 mm were set to 800 rpm. The profile drill with a diameter of 4.1 mm was set to 300 rpm, while the BLT Tap with a diameter of 4.1 mm was set to a lower speed of 15 rpm.
For the accuracy analysis, RC Mono Scanbodies (Straumann Group, Basel, CH) were mounted on the implants and scanned with the previously used desktop scanner. The 36 surface scans were exported as STL files and compared with the reference data set of the originally created planning case with the planning software. For this purpose the manufacturer of the planning software provides an non-commercially available plug-in tool named Treatment Evaluation. In accordance to the methodology of previously conducted studies [5, 12, 13] four clinically relevant deviation parameters measured between the planned and the final implant position were determined: the three-dimensional offset of the implant base (Db) and the implant tip (Dt) was defined as the distance between the coronal / apical centers of the planned and finally placed implants. The angular deviation (Ad) was calculated as the angle between the longitudinal axes of the planned and the finally placed implant. The vertical deviation at the implant tip (Vd) was calculated as the distance between the apical center of the planned implant and the apical center of the finally placed implant (Fig. 1).
The complete data acquisition, scanning of the models and the implant position evaluation were performed by the investigator using a blinded design.
The values for the angular deviation were calculated by the evaluation software in °(degrees) with one decimal place, the 3D offset and vertical deviation in millimeters with two decimal places. Data were visualized using group-specific boxplots and dotplots. The boxplots visualize five summary measures: the median, the 25th and 75th percentiles (Q1 and Q3), and the upper and lower adjacent values, which are the most extreme values within Q3 + 1.5(Q3-Q1) and Q1-1.5*(Q3-Q1), respectively. The dots represent single values and the red lines mark mean values. Pairwise comparisons between groups were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. Furthermore, to assess for each group whether the difference between regions was equal to 0, Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed. Due to the exploratory character of the study, P-values are to be interpreted only descriptively, thus no formal adjustment for multiple testing was performed. P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata/SE 16.0 (StataCorp LLC, Texas, USA).
Results
Deviation between groups
All 36 operators were able to complete the experimental implantations with two implants each and all 72 implant positions were submitted to the statistical analysis. For the group comparison regarding the mean TA, the values of the inter-dental gap situation at region 15 and the free-end situation at region 26 were combined and the operator groups were then compared with regard to the respective deviation parameters.
The mean value of angular deviation (Ad) at control group DOC was 1.9° (min. 0.2° / max. 4.0°) at test group TEC 2.0° (min. 0.5° / max. 4.1°), and for the test group OFC at 2.3° (min. 0.4° / max. 5.0°) (Fig. 2).
In the group comparison, no statistically significant differences were found between the control group DOC and the test groups TEC (p = 0.642) and OFC (p = 0.348). The comparison between the two test groups also showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.257).
The mean values of the 3-dimensional deviation at implant base (Db) at control group DOC was 0.52 mm (min. 0.14 mm / max. 1.74 mm), at test group TEC 0.42 mm (min. 0.11 mm / max. 1.10 mm), at test group OFC 0.63 mm (min. 0.14 mm / max. 1.68 mm) (Fig. 3).
The measured mean value of the 3-dimensional deviation at the implant tip (Dt) at control group DOC was 0.76 mm (min. 0.23 mm / max. 1.80 mm), at test group TEC 0.68 mm (min. 0.16 mm / max. 1.29 mm) and at test group OFC 0.89 mm (min. 0.12 mm / max. 1.74) (Fig. 4).
Considering the group comparison, no statistically significant differences were found between the control group DOC and the test groups TEC (p = 0.709) and OFC (p = 0.381). The comparison between the two test groups also showed no statistically significant difference in terms of this TA parameter (p = 0.070).
The measured mean value of the vertical deviation at the implant tip (Vd) at the control group DOC was − 0.11 mm (-1.71 mm / max. 0.57 mm), at test group TEC − 0.03 mm (min. -1.08 / max. 0.61 mm), at test group OFC − 0.24 mm (min. -1.66 mm / max. 0.61 mm) (Fig. 5).
Negative values mean a deviation in the coronal direction and positive values mean a deviation in the apical direction. When comparing groups, no statistically significant differences were found between the control group DOC and the test groups TEC (p = 0.490) and OFC (p = 0.365). The comparison between the two test groups also showed no statistically significant difference in TA (p = 0.149) (Table 2).
Deviation between inter-dental gap situation and free end situation
Different values of TA were found between the inter-dental gap and the free end situation. When comparing the mean values of TA regarding the angular deviation it was noticeable that for all three groups of operators the deviations in the free-end situation were larger than in the inter-dental gap situation. These differences turned out to be statistically significant in all three groups (DOC p = 0.046, TEC p = 0.029, OFC p = 0.006).
Comparing the 3D offset at implant base, the groups DOC and OFC achieved smaller deviations in the free-end situation than in the inter-dental gap, whereas TEC achieved larger deviations. However, no statistically significant difference was found for any group (p > 0.05).
Comparing the 3D offset at implant tip, it became evident that all three groups of operators achieved greater deviations in the mean values in the free-end situation than in the inter-dental gap situation. The difference in mean values between regions 15 and 26 was found to be statistically significant at TEC (p = 0.012).
Regarding the comparison of the vertical deviation at the implant tip between the inter-dental gap and the free-end situation, a shift of the mean values from the negative range in region 15 to the positive range in region 26 was observed in all three groups of operators. The differences between region 15 and region 26 reached statistical significance within the groups DOC (p = 0.008) and OFC (p = 0.004) (Table 3).
Discussion
To the authors’ current knowledge, no comparable studies have been conducted on this topic using operators without any relation to dentistry as a test group. In the present study, TA of experimental implantations was compared between experienced clinicians and non-specialist groups. In various current studies, operators related to dentistry are often included, such as dental students or inexperienced surgeons [7, 8, 10, 11, 14]. Product-related user tests with inexperienced or even non-specialist users are often part of a standardized development and validation process, concerning the usability of a product or system. During the initial planning phase of the study, comparing the results between male and female operators was considered since previously published studies have suggested that female surgeons achieved better results [15, 16] or may have superior fine motor skills [17], which could be reflected in the results of transfer accuracy. For this reason, all groups were created with an equal number of male and female subjects. In order to only focus on the influence on clinical experience and expertise on transfer accuracy, the participants were chosen according to a balanced gender ratio. The aim of the present study is to analyze the influence of the user’s competence level on TA of guided implant surgery. An investigation with this focus can only be performed as in vitro study design by reproducing a planned patient case and excluding all other influencing factors to the TA e.g. anatomic characteristics of the patient [18]. To avoid bias due to mechanical influences like the use of different drill guide geometries or various guided surgery systems described in further studies [19, 20], the experimental setup also required all operators to perform the implantation with the same drill guide, because the use of different guides could lead to different implant positions [21]. The coDiagnostiX® planning software was used for planning and designing the drill template. This is an established system that has been used in everyday clinical practice for several years and has been investigated in numerous studies [10, 22,23,24,25].
In order to compare the final implant position with the originally planned reference positions, different measurement methods are described in the literature. Currently the most common method to determine the TA is to perform postoperative CTs, which are processed in planning software. The method used in this study to measure the TA with scan bodies, is described in recent studies [6, 19, 26], which also avoids unnecessary radiation exposure and provides a more precise measurement to achieve and compare the implant position [13]. There are several factors that can cause errors in transfer accuracy, such as differences in imaging quality of CBCT and surface scans [27, 28], also issues with the superimposing process and errors of reproducibility when overlaying the different imaging data sets [29,30,31]. Additionally, the reproducibility of results between the planned and actual placed implant position can be influenced by different production techniques and material selection of the 3D-printed surgical guides [7, 21, 32].
The results of the present study revealed that no statistical significance of the TA could be determined for the deviation parameters when comparing the control group DOC with the two test groups TEC and OFC. Only the 3D offset at implant base revealed a statistical significance (p = 0.009) between the test groups TEC and OFC. The results of the present in vitro study also showed that experience has no influence with regard to the TA. Comparing with similar in vitro studies it comes to light that the TA measured in this present study is comparable in terms of magnitude and shows within several parameters even higher accuracy [8, 10, 11, 14, 26, 33, 34].
The fact that even the operators without any expertise and experience in dental implant placement achieved acceptable results regarding TA can be explained by the use of technical guidance through demonstrating a training video. In this case the use of such an animated video tutorial, which demonstrates the complex process steps of the static navigation system, seems to be a proven training tool even for people outside the field or inexperienced operators. At this point, further investigation is recommended, especially on the part of the responsible manufacturers and providers of static navigation systems. Providing the instruction as an animated video tutorial could guide the experienced but also inexperienced surgeon before and during intra-operative use and could provide additional safety.
Observed complications
Axial deviations can be caused by different reasons. Firstly, it was observed that the surgical template could tilt and rotate during use, which can lead to a deviating angle and thus negatively influence the TA. This phenomenon was observed in all of the three groups during the operator trials performed. On the other hand, the phenomenon of fit tolerances between the sleeves and drill handles discussed by Cassetta et al. (2015) can significantly influence the TA [35]. Significantly larger angular deviations of the implant axis were found for the inserted implants in the free-end situation compared to the inter-dental gap situation. The difference was statistically significant in all three groups of operators (p˂0.05). This significantly different TA can be explained by the intrinsic mobility and especially caused by the extension of the drill template. Whereas the drill template could be supported mesially and distally by teeth in the inter-dental gap situation in region 15, the drill template tended to descend distally in the unilateral free-end situation in region 26. This confirms the results of Toyoshima et al. (2015) and Naziri et al. (2016) that extensive unsupported drill templates in free-end situations may tilt apically and thus have an influence on the TA [36, 37] (Fig. 6).
The mechanism of tilting can be counteracted by actively holding the template in the correct position during use, e.g. by applying finger pressure to the tooth-supported area. However, this method requires a certain level of expertise and practical experience on the part of the user. Due to the experience level it was assumed that the group DOC would achieve a higher TA on these parameters than the test groups. However, this assumption could not be confirmed by the results.
Conclusion
The present in vitro results showed no statistically significant differences between the control group DOC and the test groups TEC and OFC regarding transfer accuracy at all four deviation parameters investigated (p˃0.05).
In the present in vitro study, clinical expertise and practical experience had no significant effect on transfer accuracy.
However, it is important to emphasize that the present results were obtained in a highly controlled in vitro experimental set up investigating only single procedures of a specific guided surgery workflow and therefore the clinical relevance needs to be critically discussed.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B (2018) Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and Meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in Vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33(1):101–115
Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Marqués-Guasch J, Wang HL (2020) Fully guided Versus Half-guided and Freehand Implant Placement: systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35(6):1159–1169
Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Salomó-Coll O, Wang HL (2019) Advantages and disadvantages of implant navigation surgery. A systematic review. Annals Anat = Anatomischer Anzeiger: Official Organ Anatomische Gesellschaft 225:1–10
Schnutenhaus S, Brunken L, Edelmann C, Dreyhaupt J, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2020) Alveolar ridge preservation and primary stability as influencing factors on the transfer accuracy of static guided implant placement: a prospective clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 20(1):178
Schelbert T, Gander T, Blumer M, Jung R, Rücker M, Rostetter C (2019) Accuracy of computer-guided template-based Implant surgery: a computed tomography-based clinical Follow-Up study. Implant Dent 28(6):556–563
Abduo J, Lau D (2020) Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols. Int J Implant Dentistry 6(1):10
Schulz MC, Hofmann F, Range U, Lauer G, Haim D (2019) Pilot-drill guided vs. full-guided implant insertion in artificial mandibles-a prospective laboratory study in fifth-year dental students. Int J Implant Dentistry 5(1):23
Van de Wiele G, Teughels W, Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, Temmerman A, Quirynen M (2015) The accuracy of guided surgery via mucosa-supported stereolithographic surgical templates in the hands of surgeons with little experience. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(12):1489–1494
Park SJ, Leesungbok R, Cui T, Lee SW, Ahn SJ (2017) Reliability of a CAD/CAM Surgical Guide for Implant Placement: an in Vitro comparison of surgeons’ experience levels and Implant sites. Int J Prosthodont 30(4):367–169
Kivovics M, Pénzes D, Németh O, Mijiritsky E (2020) The Influence of Surgical Experience and Bone Density on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in Edentulous Jaws Using a Mucosa-Supported Surgical Template with a Half-Guided Implant Placement Protocol-A Randomized Clinical Study. Materials (Basel, Switzerland). ;13(24)
Cushen SE, Turkyilmaz I (2013) Impact of operator experience on the accuracy of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical templates: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 109(4):248–254
Bilhan H, Arat S, Mumcu E, Geckili O, Sakar O (2012) Precision of implant placement with stereolithographic templates: a pilot in vitro study. J Oral Implantol 38(5):569–574
Brandt J, Brenner M, Lauer HC, Brandt S (2018) Accuracy of a template-guided Implant surgery system with a CAD/CAM-Based measurement method: an in Vitro Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33(2):328–334
Cassetta M, Bellardini M (2017) How much does experience in guided implant surgery play a role in accuracy? A randomized controlled pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46(7):922–930
Tsugawa Y, Jena AB, Figueroa JF, Orav EJ, Blumenthal DM, Jha AK (2017) Comparison of Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates for Medicare Patients Treated by male vs Female Physicians. JAMA Intern Med 177(2):206–213
Wallis CJ, Ravi B, Coburn N, Nam RK, Detsky AS, Satkunasivam R (2017) Comparison of postoperative outcomes among patients treated by male and female surgeons: a population based matched cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Res ed) 359:j4366
Peters M, Servos P, Day R (1990) Marked sex differences on a fine motor skill task disappear when finger size is used as covariate. J Appl Psychol 75(1):87–90
Putra RH, Yoda N, Iikubo M, Kataoka Y, Yamauchi K, Koyama S et al (2020) Influence of bone condition on implant placement accuracy with computer-guided surgery. Int J Implant Dentistry 6(1):62
El Kholy K, Janner SFM, Schimmel M, Buser D (2019) The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static computer-assisted Implant surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 21(1):101–107
Laederach V, Mukaddam K, Payer M, Filippi A, Kühl S (2017) Deviations of different systems for guided implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(9):1147–1151
Dalal N, Ammoun R, Abdulmajeed AA, Deeb GR, Bencharit S (2019) Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube deviations of Implant Surgical guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation setting. J Prosthodontics: Official J Am Coll Prosthodontists
Kühl S, Payer M, Zitzmann NU, Lambrecht JT, Filippi A (2015) Technical accuracy of printed surgical templates for guided implant surgery with the coDiagnostiX ™ software. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(Suppl 1):e177–e182
Derksen W, Wismeijer D, Flügge T, Hassan B, Tahmaseb A (2019) The accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery with tooth-supported, digitally designed drill guides based on CBCT and intraoral scanning. A prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 30(10):1005–1015
Flügge T, Ludwig U, Hövener JB, Kohal R, Wismeijer D, Nelson K (2020) Virtual implant planning and fully guided implant surgery using magnetic resonance imaging-Proof of principle. Clinical oral implants research
Kiatkroekkrai P, Takolpuckdee C, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A (2020) Accuracy of implant position when placed using static computer-assisted implant surgical guides manufactured with two different optical scanning techniques: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49(3):377–383
Lin C-C, Ishikawa M, Huang B-H, Huang M-S, Cheng H-C, Maida T et al (2020) In Vitro Accuracy of Static guided Implant surgery measured by Optical scan: examining the impact of Operator Experience. Appl Sci 10(8):2718
Dreiseidler T, Tandon D, Kreppel M, Neugebauer J, Mischkowski RA, Zinser MJ et al (2012) CBCT device dependency on the transfer accuracy from computer-aided implantology procedures. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(9):1089–1097
Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A (2019) Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 22(1):11–19
Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Machtei EE (2009) Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(10):1156–1162
Choi YD, Mai HN, Mai HY, Ha JH, Li LJ, Lee DH (2020) The effects of distribution of image matched Fiducial markers on accuracy of computer-guided Implant surgery. J Prosthodontics: Official J Am Coll Prosthodontists 29(5):409–414
Nickenig HJ, Eitner S, Rothamel D, Wichmann M, Zöller JE (2012) Possibilities and limitations of implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates. Int J Comput Dent 15(1):9–21
Henprasert P, Dawson DV, El-Kerdani T, Song X, Couso-Queiruga E, Holloway JA (2020) Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant position using Surgical guides fabricated by additive and subtractive techniques. J Prosthodontics: Official J Am Coll Prosthodontists
Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Schutyser F, Boumans T (2015) Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent 114(3):407–413
Fernández-Gil Á, Gil HS, Velasco MG, Moreno Vázquez JC (2017) An in Vitro Model to evaluate the accuracy of guided Implant Placement based on the Surgeon’s experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32(3):151–154
Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Di Giorgio G, Stefanelli LV, Barbato E (2015) The influence of the tolerance between Mechanical Components on the Accuracy of implants inserted with a Stereolithographic Surgical Guide: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(3):580–588
Toyoshima T, Tanaka H, Sasaki M, Ichimaru E, Naito Y, Matsushita Y et al (2015) Accuracy of implant surgery with surgical guide by inexperienced clinicians: an in vitro study. Clin Experimental Dent Res 1(1):10–17
Naziri E, Schramm A, Wilde F (2016) Accuracy of computer-assisted implant placement with insertion templates. GMS Interdisciplinary Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 5:Doc15
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Jürgen Vetter for implant planning and designing the surgical guide and Mr. Marc Zettler for supporting by producing the surgical guide.
Funding
The implants, resin models, surgical kits, guide sleeves, surgical guide, surgery motor were provided by Straumann Group, Basel, Switzerland. No financial income for conducting the study was received by the authors.
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FSR contributed to study conception, methodology design, operators selection and supervision, collection of the data, interpretation of the data, writing the original draft, and approving the final version of the manuscript. CB contributed to the study conception, interpretation of the data, reviewing the final version of the manuscript. HW contributed to the statistical analysis. SR contributed to the study conception, interpretation of the data, reviewing and approving the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the University of Greifswald Ethics Committee (Reg.Nr.:BB152/20). The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were aware of the nature of the study and provided their consent prior to the commencement of the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Reiff, F.S., Bischoff, C., Woelfler, H. et al. Influence of clinical expertise and practical experience on transfer accuracy in guided dental implant placement - an in vitro study. Oral Maxillofac Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-024-01269-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-024-01269-4