Premium
Accuracy of newly developed sleeve‐designed templates for insertion of dental implants: A prospective multicenters clinical trial
Author(s) -
Tallarico Marco,
Kim YongJin,
Cocchi Fabio,
Martinolli Matteo,
Meloni Silvio Mario
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12704
Subject(s) - medicine , coronal plane , implant , dentistry , cone beam computed tomography , prospective cohort study , orthodontics , anterior maxilla , radiography , nuclear medicine , surgery , computed tomography , radiology
Background The insertion of dental implants by means of computer‐assisted template‐based surgery is an established method. Purpose To investigate the accuracy of a newly developed sleeve‐designed template and to evaluate differences between maxillary and mandibular implants as well as anterior versus posterior area. Materials and Methods Any partially edentulous patients requiring at least one implant to be planned on three‐dimensional cone beam computed tomography scan, according to a computer‐assisted template‐based protocol, were consecutively enrolled at two centers. Any potential implant position was considered eligible for the present trial. Outcome measures were: implant failure, complications, and accuracy. Results A total of 39 patients with 119 implants were evaluated. No patients dropped out during the study period (mean follow‐up 12.4 ± 7.1 months). Three implants failed at centre two, whereas, one complication was experienced at centre one (limited access in posterior area). Differences were not statistically significant ( P > .05). The mean deviations were 0.53 ± 0.46 mm (range 0.05‐3.38 mm; 95% CI 0.32‐0.48 mm) in the horizontal plan (mesio‐distal); 0.42 ± 0.37 mm (range 0.0‐1.53 mm; 95% CI 0.26‐0.40 mm) in the vertical plan (apico‐coronal); and 1.43 ± 1.98° (range 0.03‐11.8°; 95% CI 0.31‐1.01°) in angle. Differences between centers were compared using the nonparametric Mann‐Whitney U test ( P > .05). More accurate results were found for anterior implants in both horizontal plan and angle. Conclusion This study showed good precision in all the parameters measured. The results were thus in a range equal to or better than the mean precision found in numerous clinical trials described in the literature. Posterior implants were less accurate because of the use of open sleeves template.