4.6 Article

In Vitro Accuracy of Static Guided Implant Surgery Measured by Optical Scan: Examining the Impact of Operator Experience

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app10082718

关键词

stereolithographic surgical guide; optical scan; 3D-planning; accuracy; computer-aided design; computer-aided manufacturing (CAD; CAM); guided implant surgery; operator experience

资金

  1. Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan [2018SKHADR020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies examining the effect of operator experience on the accuracy of static guided implant surgery have used postoperative computed tomography (CT) images to measure the error, with inconsistent results. The purpose of this study was to try to clarify this issue by using a measurement method based on the postoperative optical scan. Thirty dentists were divided into an experienced group and an inexperienced group. On a partially edentulous mandibular model in the manikin head, each dentist placed three implants via the stereolithographic (SLA) surgical guide. The implant positions were identified by a desktop scanner and compared with the planned positions using a metrology software program. No statistically significant differences were observed for any of the measured positional and angular deviations of the three implant sites between experienced and inexperienced operators (p > 0.01). All the mean values of deviations of the inexperienced group, except the depth deviation, were less than the experienced group. Implants inserted by dentists under 40 years old had significantly better accuracy than senior doctors in the global deviation at implant apex (p = 0.006). Within the limits of this study, we concluded that operator experience is not a critical factor in achieving the accuracy of guided implant surgery via the tooth-supported SLA surgical guide. Large deviations could occur even with the aid of the SLA surgical guide, and care must be taken to avoid errors for both experienced and inexperienced operators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据