Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 3, 2017

A c c u r a c y o f c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i m p l a n t p l a c e m e n t Accuracy of computer-assisted template- based implant placement using a conventional impression and scan model or digital impression: A preliminary report from a randomized controlled trial Marco Tallarico,a Erta Xhanari,b Fabio Cocchi,c Luigi Canullo,d Franco Schipanie & Silvio Mario Melonif a Aldent University, Tirana, Albania; private practice, Rome, Italy b Aldent University, Tirana, Albania; private practice, Tirana, Albania c Private practice, Modena, Italy d Private practice, Rome, Italy e Private practice, Bologna, Italy f Surgical, micro-surgical and medical science department, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; private practice, Arzachena, Italy C o r r e s p o n d i n g a u t h o r : Dr. Marco Tallarico Via di Val Tellina, 116 00151 Rome Italy me@studiomarcotallarico.it H o w t o c i t e t h i s a r t i c l e : Tallarico M, Xhanari E, Cocchi F, Canullo L, Schipani F, Meloni SM. Accuracy of computer-assisted template-based implant placement using a conventional impression and scan model or digital impression: A preliminary report from a randomized controlled trial. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Sep;3(3):08–16. Abstract O b j e c t i v e The objective of this study was to compare implant survival rate, template- related complications and virtual planning accuracy of computer- assisted template-based implant placement using a conventional impression and scan model or digital impression to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients using flapless or miniflap procedures and immediate loading. M a t e r i a l s a n d m e t h o d s Any partially edentulous patients requiring at least one implant, to be planned on the basis of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans using dedicated software, were enrolled in the trial. Patients were ran- domized according to a parallel-group design into two arms: intraoral digital impression (fully digital group) versus conventional impression and scan model (control group). Implants were to be placed flapless and loaded immediately, if inserted with a torque over 35 N cm, with re- inforced provisional prostheses. Three deviation parameters (horizontal, vertical and angular) were defined and calculated between the planned and placed implant positions and analyzed statistically. Results were compared using a mixed-design repeated-measures analysis of variance model ((cid:696) = 0.05). R e s u l t s Twelve patients were randomized to the fully digital group (6 patients with 17 implants) and control group (6 patients with 20 implants). The mean error in angle was 2.56 ± 1.52° (range: 0.3–5.0°) in the fully digital group and 2.18 ± 1.41° (range: 0.3–5.8°) in the control group (P = 0.519). In the horizontal plane (mesiodistal), the mean error was 0.57 ± 0.32 mm (range: 0.1–1.1 mm) in the fully digital group and 0.43 ± 0.26 mm (range: 0.1–0.9 mm) in the control group (P = 0.249). In the vertical plane (apico- coronal), the mean error was 0.67 ± 0.51 mm (range: 0.0–1.6 mm) in the fully digital group and 0.43 ± 0.32 mm (range: 0.0–1.2 mm) in the control group (P = 0.180). 08 Volume 3 | Issue 3/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation

Pages Overview