DOI:

10.37988/1811-153X_2023_2_144

Experimental justification of the use of surgical templates

Downloads

Authors

  • S.K. Mamedov 1, postgraduate at the Oral and maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0003-0017-6148
  • N.A. Guseynov 1, postgraduate at the Oral and maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0001-7160-2023
  • S.G. Ivashkevich 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, associate professor of the Oral and maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0001-6995-8629
  • R.F. Mukhametshin 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, assistant professor of the Oral and maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0001-6975-7018
  • N.L. Lezhava 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, assistant professor of the Oral and maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0003-0624-843X
  • E.A. Lukianova 1, PhD in Biological Sciences, assistant professor of the Medical informatics and telemedicine Department
    ORCID: 0000-0002-6440-6662
  • T. Haddad 1, training master of the Oral and maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0001-6330-1263
  • V.D. Trufanov 1, PhD in Medical Sciences, associate professor of the Oral and maxillofacial surgery Department
    ORCID: 0000-0001-5034-5275
  • 1 RUDN University, 117198, Moscow, Russia

Abstract

The use of surgical guides undoubtedly allows more accurate placement of a dental implant. However, the issues of osteotomy accuracy and direct placement of a dental implant remain open due to the small number of experimental studies. Aim: To validate the use of surgical navigation guides in experimental dental implantation.
Materials and methods.
Twenty operators with different levels of clinical experience were selected on a prospective basis and divided into 2 groups: Group I placed demo implants with a surgical navigation template (SNT), Group II without. A virtual dental implant installed in the software was used as a control. In total, 20 implants were placed. The implant system used was the Innovative Russian Implant System (IRIS) LIKO-M demonstration dental implants of various diameters and lengths, as well as the guide and standard IRIS surgical protocol. The models were scanned with a Shining 3D scanner (30 µm accuracy), the basis of template was produced on a Formlabs 2 3D printer (25 µm accuracy). Angulation (VOA, MDA) and position (VOP, MDA) values were used to evaluate the accuracy of demo implant placement between the groups and the reference.
Results.
Statistical analysis of angulation values (VOA, MDA) and position (VOP, MDP) on the CBCT showed that the positions of the placed demo implants correlated with the method of their placement. For MDA and VOA, the differences were not statistically significant (p=0.880 and 0.734, respectively), and for MDP and VOP, the differences were statistically significant (p=0.004 and 0.005, respectively). When compared with the reference differences, the VOP values in group I and the MDA values in group II were not statistically significant (p=0.296 and 0.094, respectively), and the other indices were statistically significant. The results of the statistical analysis showed that the use of SNT in clinical practice allows more accurate osteotomies as well as placement of a dental implant. However, we have shown that for some values there is no difference in the placement of a dental implant with and without SNT. For example, the VO angulation without navigation was close to the reference in 2 participants, below the reference in 6, and higher than the computer model in another 2. With navigation, 2 participants had VOA close to reference and the rest had lower values.
Conclusions.
The use of static surgical navigation guides in the majority of clinical cases allows a more accurate transfer of the planned position of the virtual dental implant in the patient's oral cavity.

Key words:

surgical navigation template, dental implantation, navigation surgery

For Citation

[1]
Mamedov S.K., Guseynov N.A., Ivashkevich S.G., Mukhametshin R.F., Lezhava N.L., Lukianova E.A., Haddad T., Trufanov V.D. Experimental justification of the use of surgical templates. Clinical Dentistry (Russia).  2023; 26 (2): 144—149. DOI: 10.37988/1811-153X_2023_2_144

References

  1. Pellegrino G., Ferri A., Del Fabbro M., Prati C., Gandolfi M.G., Marchetti C. Dynamic navigation in implant dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021; 36 (5): e121-e140. PMID: 34698720
  2. Wang X., Shaheen E., Shujaat S., Meeus J., Legrand P., Lahoud P., do Nascimento Gerhardt M., Politis C., Jacobs R. Influence of experience on dental implant placement: an in vitro comparison of freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches. Int J Implant Dent. 2022; 8 (1): 42. PMID: 36210395
  3. D.’haese J., Ackhurst J., Wismeijer D., De Bruyn H., Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73 (1): 121—133. PMID: 28000275
  4. Orgev A., Pellerito J., Polido W., Morton D., Lin W.S. Bead-anchored surgical templates for static computer-assisted implant surgery: A dental technique. J Prosthodont. 2022; 31 (8): 722—727. PMID: 35851708
  5. Makarov N., Pompa G., Papi P. Computer-assisted implant placement and full-arch immediate loading with digitally prefabricated provisional prostheses without cast: a prospective pilot cohort study. Int J Implant Dent. 2021; 7 (1): 80. PMID: 34486078
  6. Buser D., Halbritter S., Hart C., Bornstein M.M., Grütter L., Chappuis V., Belser U.C. Early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: 12-month results of a prospective study with 20 consecutive patients. J Periodontol. 2009; 80 (1): 152—62. PMID: 19228101
  7. Buser D., Wittneben J., Bornstein M.M., Grütter L., Chappuis V., Belser U.C. Stability of contour augmentation and esthetic outcomes of implant-supported single crowns in the esthetic zone: 3-year results of a prospective study with early implant placement postextraction. J Periodontol. 2011; 82 (3): 342—9. PMID: 20831371
  8. Tallarico M., Czajkowska M., Cicciù M., Giardina F., Minciarelli A., Zadrożny Ł., Park C.J., Meloni S.M. Accuracy of surgical templates with and without metallic sleeves in case of partial arch restorations: A systematic review. J Dent. 2021; 115: 103852. PMID: 34656660
  9. Stünkel R., Zeller A.N., Bohne T., Böhrnsen F., Wedi E., Raschke D., Kauffmann P. Accuracy of intraoral real-time navigation versus static, CAD/CAM-manufactured pilot drilling guides in dental implant surgery: an in vitro study. Int J Implant Dent. 2022; 8 (1): 41. PMID: 36198996
  10. Böse M.W.H., Beuer F., Schwitalla A., Bruhnke M., Herklotz I. Dynamic navigation for dental implant placement in single-tooth gaps: A preclinical pilot investigation. J Dent. 2022; 125: 104265. PMID: 35995082
  11. Jorba-García A., González-Barnadas A., Camps-Font O., Figueiredo R., Valmaseda-Castellón E. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 25 (5): 2479—2494. PMID: 33635397
  12. Behneke A., Burwinkel M., Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 (4): 416—23. PMID: 22092586
  13. Dreiseidler T., Neugebauer J., Ritter L., Lingohr T., Rothamel D., Mischkowski R.A., Zöller J.E. Accuracy of a newly developed integrated system for dental implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20 (11): 1191—9. PMID: 19681962
  14. Emery R.W., Merritt S.A., Lank K., Gibbs J.D. Accuracy of dynamic navigation for dental implant placement-model-based evaluation. J Oral Implantol. 2016; 42 (5): 399—405. PMID: 27267658
  15. Aydemir C.A., Arısan V. Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31 (3): 255—263. PMID: 31829457
  16. Yogui F.C., Verri F.R., de Luna Gomes J.M., Lemos C.A.A., Cruz R.S., Pellizzer E.P. Comparison between computer-guided and freehand dental implant placement surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021; 50 (2): 242—250. PMID: 32921557
  17. Balin K.D., Borisova E.G. Rehabilitation of patients with partial secondary edentulousness with orthopedic constructions on dental implants using coDiagnostiX surgical guides. Medical and pharmaceutical journal Pulse. 2021; 3: 88—94 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 45586793
  18. Gargallo-Albiol J., Barootchi S., Salomó-Coll O., Wang H.L. Advantages and disadvantages of implant navigation surgery. A systematic review. Ann Anat. 2019; 225: 1—10. PMID: 31063802
  19. Li J., Chen Z., Chan H.L., Sinjab K., Yu H., Wang H.L. Does flap opening or not influence the accuracy of semi-guided implant placement in partially edentulous sites? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21 (6): 1253—1261. PMID: 31642588
  20. Bover-Ramos F., Viña-Almunia J., Cervera-Ballester J., Peñarrocha-Diago M., García-Mira B. 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. 2018; 33 (1): 101—115. PMID: 28632253
  21. Bulanov S.I., Lysov A.D., Sofronov M.V. Digital navigation surgery in comprehensive dental rehabilitation. Bulletin of Medical Institute “REAVIZ”: Rehabilitation, Doctor and Health. 2018; 6 (36): 82—94 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 36978701
  22. Suárez-López Del Amo F., Lin G.H., Monje A., Galindo-Moreno P., Wang H.L. Influence of soft tissue thickness on peri-implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2016; 87 (6): 690—9. PMID: 26777766
  23. Linkevicius T., Puisys A., Linkevicius R., Alkimavicius J., Gineviciute E., Linkeviciene L. The influence of submerged healing abutment or subcrestal implant placement on soft tissue thickness and crestal bone stability. A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020; 22 (4): 497—506. PMID: 32250061
  24. Aizcorbe-Vicente J., Peñarrocha-Oltra D., Canullo L., Soto-Peñaloza D., Peñarrocha-Diago M. Influence of facial bone thickness after implant placement into the healed ridges on the remodeled facial bone and considering soft tissue recession: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020; 35 (1): 107—119. PMID: 31923293
  25. Ivaschenko A.V., Yablokov A.E., Antonyan Y.E., Geletin P.N. Analysis of dental implantation techniques. Bulletin of Medical Institute “REAVIZ”: Rehabilitation, Doctor and Health. 2018; 3 (33): 65—75 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 35530214
  26. Rybak V.A., Kopchak A.V. Current possibilities and perspectives of CAD/CAM technology in the treatment of patients with defects and deformities of facial bones. Trauma. 2015; 3: 71—78 (In Ukrainian). eLIBRARY ID: 23837954
  27. Yilmaz Z., Ucer C., Scher E., Suzuki J., Renton T. A survey of the opinion and experience of UK dentists: Part 2: Risk assessment strategies and the management of iatrogenic trigeminal nerve injuries related to dental implant surgery. Implant Dent. 2017; 26 (2): 256—262. PMID: 28125518
  28. Vokulova J.A., Zhulev E.N. A method for evaluation of dental implant placement accuracy using digital technologies. Siberian Medical Review. 2022; 1 (133): 59—65 (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 48327908

Downloads

Received

March 21, 2023

Accepted

June 16, 2023

Published on

July 6, 2023