Open AccessComparative evaluation between the “All on Four” and “Four on Pillars” techniques in 3D virtual planning associated with guided surgery on atrophic jaws
Author(s) -
Marcelo do Lago Pimentel Maia,
Daniel Souza Ferreira Magalhães
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
research, society and development
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2525-3409
DOI - 10.33448/rsd-v10i14.22021
Subject(s) - notice , maxilla , orthodontics , significant difference , medicine , plan (archaeology) , statistical analysis , statistical software , dentistry , computer science , mathematics , statistics , geography , data science , archaeology , political science , law
Thorough technical knowledge and anatomical understanding are critical for optimal surgical results. The difficulty of complete maxillary surgery can vary significantly depending on the complexity of the anatomy or bone defect. In this work, we analyze and compare two methods of software-guided planning for the manipulation of dental implants, associated with the All on Four (ALL) and Four on pillars (FOUR) techniques used in patients with atrophic maxillae. Forty-two images of totally edentulous patients were analyzed, and surgical planning was performed using both methods. The average area of the Four on pillars technique is 4.9x (p<0.0001) greater than the average area of the All on four technique, this represents a difference of 489%. This means that, for the same force applied by the jaw, we will have a 4.9x smaller pressure, that is, a better distribution of forces on the jaws. It was not possible to notice a statistical difference between the success proportions (p=0.2542), this means that both techniques have a non-different (similar) success proportion. We conclude that the area of the polygon formed in the Four on pillars surgical plan is larger than in the All on four plan and this results in significantly less pressure on the implants. We also concluded that it was not possible to notice a statistical difference between the proportions of success, which shows that there is no technique with successful performance advantages over the other.