Affiliation: School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics
Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the accuracy along the x,y, and z axis as well as rotational accuracy when comparing the planned implant position in Simplant with the final, impressed, implant position using Geomagic12 studio software to overlay the positions. Materials: and Methods: Digital data for the pre-surgical planned implant location and post-surgical implant location as determined by an implant level impression was uploaded into Geomagic and computer modeling was used to compare the difference in 3-dimensional position, mesial-distal tip, buccal-lingual tip, apical depth and rotation. Results: In 3-dimensional space, the difference between the planned and final implant locations was 0.34mm for the x and z dimension and 0.31mm for the y dimension, for an overall median difference of 0.33mm. The median final implant location apically, compared with the planned location, was 0.4mm apical to the planned position. Angular difference between planned and final implant location was 0.47 degrees tipped to the mesial and 0.22 degrees tipped to the lingual. The rotational timing of the implants compared to Simplant’s decided timing for abutment placement was 3.19 degrees rotated clockwise. Conclusions: This novel way of evaluating accuracy of fully guided surgery eliminates the need for post-healing CBCTs, decreasing the cumulative radiation dose of our patients. Further investigation with large study populations will be necessary to verify the results. However, this data helps support the efficacy of current guided surgeries and why they should continue to be used whenever the clinical situation is deemed appropriate.