These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Trephination-based, guided surgical implant placement: A clinical study.
    Author: Suriyan N, Sarinnaphakorn L, Deeb GR, Bencharit S.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Mar; 121(3):411-416. PubMed ID: 30503150.
    Abstract:
    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional guided implant surgery promises clinical success through implant placement accuracy; however, it requires multiple drills along with surgical sleeves and sleeve adapters for the horizontal and vertical control of osteotomy drills. This results in cumbersome surgery, problems with patients having limited mouth opening, and restriction to specific drill or implant manufacturers. A protocol for using trephination drills to simplify guided surgery and accommodate multiple implant systems is introduced. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using this novel guided trephine drill protocol with and without a surgical sleeve. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Intraoral scanning and preoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were used for implant treatment planning. Surgical guides were fabricated using stereolithography. Implant surgery was performed using the guided trephination protocol with and without a surgical sleeve. Postoperative CBCT scans were used to measure the implant placement deviations rather than the implant planning position. Surgical placement time and patient satisfaction were also documented. One-tailed t test and F-test (P=.01) were used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Thirty-five implants in 17 participants were included in this study. With a surgical sleeve, implant positional deviations were 0.51 ±0.13 mm vertically, 0.32 ±0.10 mm facially, 0.11 ±0.11 mm lingually, and 0.38 ±0.13 mm mesially. Without a surgical sleeve, implant positional deviations were 0.58 ±0.27 mm vertically, 0.3 ±0.14 mm facially, 0.39 ±0.16 mm lingually, and 0.41 ±0.12 mm mesially. No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 protocols (P>.01), except that the sleeve group had greater vertical control precision (F-test, P=.006), reduced placement time, and the time variation was reduced (t test, P=.003; F-test, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This trephination-based, guided implant surgery protocol produces accurate surgical guides that permit guided surgery in limited vertical access and with the same guided surgery protocol for multiple implant systems. Guided sleeves, although not always necessary, improve depth control and reduce surgical time in implant placement.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]