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: Accuracy of Implant Placement Position Using Nondental Open-Source Software: An In Vitro Study.
    Author: Talmazov G, Bencharit S, Waldrop TC, Ammoun R.
    Journal: J Prosthodont; 2020 Aug; 29(7):604-610. PubMed ID: 32495453.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement position using two different dental implant planning software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files from a cone beam computed tomography of a patient missing maxillary right first premolar was used. Implant planning was done using two open-source programs: A nondental 3D Slicer/Blender (3DSB) software and a commercial dental implant treatment planning program: Blue Sky Plan 4 (BSP4). An intraoral scan of the same patient was used to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file of the maxillary arch and later printed into 20 identical casts. Ten surgical guides were printed for each group as well. A dental implant (3.8 mm × 12 mm, Biohorizons) was placed into each cast using fully guided surgical protocol. The horizontal displacements at the implant cervical platform and at the implant apex as well as the angulation displacements were measured using digital scanning of the implant scan bodies and were analyzed using a 3D compare software. Statistical analyses were conducted (⍺ = 0.05) using t-test and F-test to examine differences in trueness and precision, respectively. RESULTS: The average horizontal deviations for the platform and the apex, respectively, were 0.33 ± 0.12 mm and 0.76 ± 0.30 mm for 3DSB and 0.44 ± 0.21 mm and 0.98 ± 0.48 mm for BSP4. The average angulation deviations for 3DSB and BSB4 were 2.34 ± 0.93° and 3.07 ± 1.57°, respectively. There were no statistical differences in the means (t-test) of the platform, apex, and angulation deviations (p = 0.16, p = 0.19, and p = 0.18, respectively). There were statistical differences in the variances (F test) of the platform (p = 0.043) and angulation (p = 0.049) deviations but not the apex (p = 0.059) deviations. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of nondental open-source software, 3D Slicer/Blender can be used to plan implant guided surgery with an accuracy similar to commercial dental software with slightly higher precision. Open-source nondental software can be considered as an alternative in dental implant treatment planning and guided surgery.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]