Post Title

Aim: To compare the planned implant position (PIP) to the transferred implant position (TIP) after fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps.Materials and methods: Dental implant placements were planned using different implant systems (Camlog Screw Line [C-SL], Straumann Bone Level Tapered [S-BLT]) and planning software (SMOP and coDiagnostiX). All implants were placed according to full-guided protocols and intraoral scans were performed intraoperatively. For comparison of PIP and TIP scan data were imported to a software (Geomagic Control X [GCX]) and accuracies were evaluated. Deviations were reported in a coordinate system (x-, y- and z-axis) at entry points and apices. Total deviations including the angular deviations were calculated with GCX. For statistical analysis, level of significance was set to p < 0.05.Results: Twenty-six patients received twenty-six implants. Mean three-dimensional (3D) deviation at implant’s entry point was 0.61mm ± 0.28 for C-SL and 0.63mm ± 0.24 for S-BLT. For implant’s apex, mean 3D deviation of 0.96mm ± 0.41 was documented for C-SL and 1.04mm ± 0.34 for S-BLT. Mean angular deviation was 2.58° ± 1.40 for C-SL and 2.89° ± 1.12 for S-BLT. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between implant systems, but significant deviations regarding z-axis, both at entry point and apex (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Fully guided implant placements in single-tooth gaps provide accurate results. Due to significant vertical deviations, reevaluation of both drilling and insertion depths prior to implant installation should be considered. Maintenance of 1.5mm safety distances to critical structures was confirmed.

Keywords: dental implants, static navigation, CAD/CAM, computer-assisted, backward planning, digital workflow