Skip to main content
Download PDF

Does implant drill design influence the accuracy of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery? An in vitro study

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 575 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement in model surgeries according to the design of the drills (straight drills or step drills) used to finalize the implant bed during pilot-guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).

Methods

Model surgeries were carried out on resin models randomly assigned to three study groups. Virtual planning software (coDiagnostiX 10.6, Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada) was used to plan the implant positions. In Groups 1 and 2, pilot-guided sCAIS was performed. Straight drills were used in Group 1, and step drills were used in Group 2 to finalize the implant beds. In Group 3, fully guided sCAIS was performed using a universal fully guided kit (RealGUIDE Full Surgical Kit 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy). A total of 90 dental implants (Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were placed (six implants per model, five models per study group). The primary outcome variables (angular deviation, coronal global deviation, and apical global deviation) were calculated for all implants based on the comparison of the preoperative surgical plan with the postoperative scans.

Results

Group 2 (coronal global deviation, 0.78 ± 0.29 mm; apical global deviation, 1.02 ± 0.56 mm) showed significantly lower values of both global deviation variables than Group 1 (coronal global deviation, 0.95 ± 0.20 mm; apical global deviation, 1.42 ± 0.49 mm). However, there was no significant difference in angular deviation between Groups 1 and 2 (7.56 ± 2.92° and 6.44 ± 2.84°). Group 3 produced significantly lower values of all three primary outcome variables (angular deviation, 2.36 ± 0.90°; coronal global deviation, 0.59 ± 0.28 mm; apical global deviation, 0.90 ± 0.29 mm) than Group 1 and significantly lower angular deviation and coronal global deviation values than Group 2.

Conclusions

The design of the drills used to finalize implant osteotomies during pilot-guided sCAIS influences dental implant placement accuracy. Using step drills instead of straight drills for final osteotomies decreases deviation from the surgical plan. The fully guided approach performed better than the pilot-guided sCAIS.

Peer Review reports

Background

Backwards planning in oral implantology enables the clinician to conceive the number, position, and angulation of dental implants based on the prosthetic plan [1]. Contemporary digital solutions allow for registration of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data, digital impressions, and face scans, thereby assisting in planning dental implant prosthetics [2,3,4,5,6]. Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) enables the transfer of the planned implant positions to the surgical site [7, 8].

Guided implant placement allows the surgeon to perform an intervention with decreased invasiveness compared to the free-hand method, which reduces postoperative morbidity [9]. In static CAIS (sCAIS), a surgical template is manufactured through virtual planning to guide the drills during implant bed preparation [10]. In a fully guided procedure, every step of the implant bed preparation, as well as the implant placement, is guided by the surgical template. During a half-guided protocol, the final steps of implant bed preparation and implant placement are carried out without the guidance of the surgical template. The pilot-guided protocol is a subtype of half-guided sCAIS, where only the first osteotomy is guided; the template is then removed, the implant bed is finalized, and the implant is placed in a free-handed manner [11,12,13]. Accurate positioning of the platform of the implant helps the surgeon reduce complications in the adjacent teeth and preserve sufficient bone on the vestibular and palatal aspect of the implant, which facilitates the long-term stability of soft and hard tissues surrounding the dental implant. Decreasing deviations at the apical part of the dental implant enable the clinician to avoid the nasal cavity, maxillary sinuses, nerves, and major blood vessels. Optimal angulation of the implant facilitates ideal biomechanics and acceptable aesthetics of the prosthesis [14,15,16].

According to the results of the meta-analysis of Gargallo-Albiol et al. based on ten randomized clinical studies, a 0.51 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) [0.29, 0.73]) coronal global deviation, 0.75 mm (95% CI [-1.19, -0.31]) apical global deviation, and 3.63° (95% CI [-4.10, -3.16]) benefit in accuracy is observed in the literature, favouring fully guided surgery over half-guided surgery [17]. However, as the surgical template remains in place for the whole intervention, cooling of the drills is inhibited during fully guided sCAIS [18, 19]. The heating of the surgical template and its resulting dimensional changes may affect implant placement accuracy [20]. Another factor influencing the accuracy of sCAIS is the material of the surgical template and its biomechanical properties [21, 22]. Pilot-guided sCAIS enables abundant cooling throughout the surgery and requires less elaborate instrumentation, as the surgeon finalizes the implant bed using drills and instructions provided by the manufacturer of the dental implant to be placed [7, 23]. Several dental implant manufacturers provide straight drills in their surgical trays for implant bed preparation. However, some manufacturers equip the trays with step drills. The diameter of the apical portion of these step drills corresponds with the coronal diameter of the previous drill in the drilling sequence, aiming to prevent deviation from the angulation already determined by earlier osteotomies [24].

There is a lack of evidence in the literature on whether using step drills or straight drills for the finalization of the implant bed during pilot-guided sCAIS influences the accuracy of dental implant placement.

This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant placement in model surgeries according to the design of the drills (straight drills or step drills) used to finalize the implant bed during pilot-guided sCAIS. Our null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference in the accuracy of implant placement achieved whether straight drills or step drills are used to finalize implant beds following the guided pilot osteotomy. In addition, we hypothesized that fully guided sCAIS allows for more accurate implant positioning compared to the pilot-guided intervention regardless of the design of the drills used to finalize implant osteotomies.

Materials and methods

Study design

An in vitro study was designed to test our hypotheses. The sample size was determined based on the results of Stünkel et al. [25] and Kivovics et al. [26] using G*Power 3.1 software (v.3.1.9.3, 2017, Institut für Experimentelle Psychologie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany). According to the results of these studies, an angular deviation of 4.6 ± 1.50° may be expected from a pilot-guided implant placement protocol where implant beds were finalized using straight drills, whereas an angular deviation of 3.21 ± 1.52° may be expected from pilot-guided sCAIS where step drills were used to finalize osteotomies. If α (false-positive rate) was set at 0.05, to reach a power of 95% with a 1:1 distribution ratio between study groups, the minimal sample size was determined to be at least 27 dental implants placed per study group.

In Group 1, model surgeries were carried out using pilot-guided sCAIS followed by step drills. In Group 2, implant placement was performed with a pilot-guided protocol followed by straight drills. In Group 3, fully guided sCAIS was performed to place implants. The brand, diameter, and length of the implants used were the same in all three study groups and at all sites (4.2 mm diameter, 10 mm length, article number: CP 1042 − 100, Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany).

To minimize participant bias, different examiners were tasked with performing individual assignments. The clinician assigned to surgical planning (A.M.) did not take part in the surgical interventions and data acquisition. The clinician performing the model surgery (M.K.) was not involved in the evaluation of the accuracy of implant placement (A.T.). The examiner carrying out the measurements of the outcome variables (A.T.) was blinded to the surgical modality used during the model surgeries.

Preoperative CBCT, digital impression, and implant planning

Resin models for hands-on training and education mimicking D3-type bone according to the Misch classification (U-009 A, BoneModels S.L.U., Castellon, Spain) were randomly assigned to three study groups.

CBCT scans (Planmeca Promax 3D, Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland) were carried out with an 8 × 8 cm field of view at a voxel size of 200 μm, exposure time of 12.45 s, tube voltage of 62 kV, and tube current of 5 mA prior to the model surgeries. The models were digitized to Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files using a desktop scanner (Medit T710, Medit, Seoul, Republic of Korea).

The remaining dentition on the models consisted of the upper incisors. Prosthetic planning was performed using DWOS 16.0.1 software (Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada, USA) to replace the missing teeth (World Dental Federation, FDI 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, and 26) with four-unit, screw-retained fixed partial dentures on both sides with dental implants at the sites of the canines, first premolar, and first molar. Virtual planning of the positions of the dental implants (4.2 mm diameter, 10 mm length, CP 1042 − 100, Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) and surgical templates was carried out using coDiagnostiX 10.6 software (Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada). STL files of the models were registered with the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data of the CBCT reconstructions. Surgical templates for the pilot-guided interventions of Groups 1 and 2 were designed with sleeves of a 2.0 mm inner diameter, 4.0 mm outer diameter, and height of 4.0 mm (article number: GSLEEVE, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany). Sleeves were positioned 19.2 mm from the planned position of the implant apex at each site, resulting in a free drilling distance of 15.2 mm to correspond with the free drilling distance of the surgical templates used in Group 3. Three sleeves for the guide fixation pins (article number: 3DM00671, 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy) were planned to stabilize the surgical guides.

Surgical templates for the fully guided procedures of Group 3 were planned with sleeves (article number: 3DM00604CAD1.10, 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy) specific to the universal fully guided kit and three sleeves for the guide fixation pins similar to the ones used in Groups 1 and 2. The sleeves available for this fully guided system (article number: 3DM00604CAD1.10, 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy) have an inner diameter of 5.0 mm, an outer diameter of 6.0 mm and a height of 4.0 mm. The shank of the drills used in this system is modified to fit inside the metal sleeve in the surgical template. All six sleeves were planned to be placed 19.2 mm from the planned position of the implant apex, resulting in a free drilling distance of 15.2 mm.

Rapid prototyping (3D printing) of the surgical templates was carried out using Form 2 hardware (Formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA) and Clear Resin material (Formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA) in all three study groups.

Model surgery

The interventions were performed by a surgeon (M.K.) who was well experienced in the clinical use of static CAIS with both pilot-guided and fully guided protocols. Model surgeries were carried out in a randomized order over the course of five days with three model surgeries (18 implants placed) each day to avoid inaccuracies due to fatigue.

Osteotomies were carried out at a drill rotation speed of 800 rpm with external cooling. Dental implants 4.2 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length (article number: CP 1042 − 100, Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were placed at sites FDI 13, 14, 16, 23, 24, and 26 in all three study groups.

In Group 1, the fit of the surgical guide was verified, and the templates were stabilized on the models using three guide fixation pins (article number: 3DM00609, 3DM00671, 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy). A pilot drill with a 2 mm diameter (article number: CP 2mmL, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) was used for the pilot osteotomy. The surgical template was removed, and straight implant drills of 2.3 mm, 2.8 mm, 3.4 mm, and 3.8 mm (article numbers: CP 2.3mmL, CP 2.8mmL, CP 3.4mmL, CP 3.8mmL, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were used for implant bed preparation. Dental implant placement was performed manually with a ratchet.

In Group 2, after checking the fit of the surgical template, stabilization was carried out using three guide fixation pins. A pilot drill with a 2 mm diameter (article number: CP 2mmL, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) was used for the pilot osteotomy. Implant beds were finalized in a free-handed manner according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Step drills of 2.0/2.3 mm, 2.3/2.85 mm, 2.8/3.3 mm, and 3.25/3.7 mm (article numbers: CP CD1, CP CD2, CP CD3, CP CD4, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were used for osteotomies. Dental implant placement was performed manually with a ratchet.

In Group 3, the fit of the template was checked, and fully guided implant bed preparation was carried out according to the instructions of the manufacturer of the fully guided kit (RealGUIDE Full Surgical Kit, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy) using the following drill sequence: bone crest leveller (article number: 3DM00614), start drill, (article number: 3DM00621), drill D1.6 × 7 mm (article number: 3DM00613.16.70), drill D2.3 × 8.5 mm (article number: 3DM00613.23.85), drill D2.3 × 10 mm (article number: 3DM00613.23.10), drill D3.0 × 10 mm (article number: 3DM00613.30.10), drill D3.4 × 10 mm (article number: 3DM00613.34.10), and drill D3.8 × 10 mm (article number: 3DM00613.38.10). Implant placement was performed using a manual torque wrench (article number: 3DM00611) with the implant mount (Nobel Active RP connection, article number: 3DM00606NBLACTRPL 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy). Figure 1 presents the experimental setup in the three study groups.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The experimental setup in the three study groups. In Group 1, model surgeries were carried out using pilot-guided sCAIS followed by step drills. In Group 2, implant placement was performed with a pilot-guided protocol followed by straight drills. In Group 3, fully guided sCAIS was performed to place implants. The design of one of the surgical templates used in Groups 1 and 2 (A) and Group 3 (B). Set of straight (C) and step (D) drills used to finalize implant beds in Groups 1 and 2

Full size image

Postoperative imaging

Scan bodies (cp52.042, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were connected to the implants, and postoperative scanning of the models was carried out using a desktop scanner (Medit T710, Medit, Seoul, Republic of Korea). Computer-aided design (CAD) files of the scan body and the dental implant were acquired from the implant manufacturer (Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany).

Trueness evaluation

The primary outcome variables describing implant placement accuracy were angular deviation, coronal global deviation, and apical global deviation. The primary outcome variables were calculated by an investigator (A.T.) blinded to the modality used for implant placement during the model surgery. Planned implant positions relative to the surface of the models were exported using the Virtual Planning Export option of the coDiagnostiX 10.6 (Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada, USA) software in STL file format. Variables were calculated using Slicer 5.2.2 (The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., Boston, USA) software following the registration of the STL files of the surgical plan, postoperative scan, and implants and scan bodies [27]. Figure 2 shows the measurement of the outcome variables.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Outcome variables were measured in Slicer 5.2.2 (The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., Boston, USA). Cylinders represent the planned implant positions, whereas the dental implant surfaces represent the achieved implant positions. Registration of the STL files of the surgical plan and postoperative scan (A), superimposition of the STL files of the implant and scan bodies (B, C), and data acquisition (D)

Full size image

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS software, version 28 (IBM Corporation, New York, NY, USA). According to the grouping by surgical modality used (pilot-guided with straight implant drills, pilot-guided with step drills, or fully guided approach), the Shapiro–Wilk test of the primary outcome variables was performed. The test revealed that all outcome variables were approximately normally distributed. One-way ANOVA with a post hoc test (Tukey) was carried out to compare angular deviation, coronal global deviation, and apical global deviation data among the three study groups. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

In each study group, dental implant placement was performed on five models, and six implants were placed per model, for a total of 90 implants placed in this study. Additional file 1 contains the primary data obtained from the trueness evaluation.

Pilot-guided implant placement followed up with step drills (Group 2) showed significantly lower values of both global deviation variables (coronal global deviation, 0.78 ± 0.29 mm; apical global deviation, 1.02 ± 0.56 mm) than pilot-guided implant placement followed up with straight drills (Group 1) (coronal global deviation, 0.95 ± 0.20 mm; apical global deviation, 1.42 ± 0.49 mm). However, there were no significant differences in angular deviation between Groups 1 and 2 (7.56 ± 2.92° and 6.44 ± 2.84°).

The fully guided approach (Group 3) produced significantly lower values of all three primary outcome variables (angular deviation, 2.36 ± 0.90°; coronal global deviation, 0.59 ± 0.28 mm; and apical global deviation, 0.90 ± 0.29 mm) than Group 1 and significantly lower angular deviation and coronal global deviation values than Group 2. However, there was no significant difference in apical global deviation between Groups 2 and 3. Figure 3 presents the results of the statistical analysis.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Bar graphs representing the angular deviation (A), coronal global deviation (B), and apical global deviation (C) data (mean ± standard deviation) with the results of the Tukey post hoc test. * p < 0.05. ± 1 SD is indicated by the error bars

Full size image

Discussion

Static CAIS is performed in clinical practice to enable dental implant placement close to the virtually planned, prosthetically desirable position [13, 14, 17]. Both fully guided and pilot-guided sCAIS significantly reduce the time of surgery and postoperative morbidity compared to free-hand implant placement [8, 11]. According to reviews conducted on the topic, further in vitro and clinical studies are needed to separately assess the number of factors in the digital workflow that may contribute to the deviation of achieved implant positions from the surgical plan [15, 28]. This is the first study to assess the influence of the implant drill design used to shape the implant bed during pilot-guided sCAIS on the accuracy of implant placement.

In the present study, improved implant placement accuracy was observed in models where step drills were used to complete implant bed preparation following the guided pilot osteotomy compared to when straight drills were used. However, different drill designs did not significantly influence the angulation of the implants placed. Therefore, the null hypothesis of the present study was rejected: the design of the drills used to finalize implant osteotomies following pilot-guided sCAIS influences dental implant placement accuracy.

Dental implant manufacturers provide surgical trays with drills deemed the most suitable for preparation of the implant bed. In a pilot-guided protocol, only the first osteotomy is guided by the surgical template [12, 29]. Therefore, implant placement accuracy is dependent on the extent to which the clinician can maintain the angulation and position of successive drills. Manufacturers provide straight drills or step drills in their surgical trays for cylindrical implants. The diameter of the apical portion of the step drills corresponds with the coronal diameter of the preceding drill in the drilling sequence, allowing the surgeon to better maintain the angulation and position of the osteotomy. According to the results of the present study, using step drills to finalize the implant bed during pilot-guided sCAIS improves implant placement accuracy.

In their study, Guentsch et al. reported on the implant placement accuracy achieved using pilot-guided sCAIS. According to their results, an angular deviation of 2.83 ± 0.79°, coronal global deviation of 0.54 ± 0.16 mm, and apical global deviation of 0.97 ± 0.25 mm were found using straight drills to finalize osteotomies [30]. Spille et al. used a similar approach and reported an angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°, coronal global deviation of 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, and apical global deviation of 1.068 ± 0.384 mm [31]. In their study, Abduo et al. reported an angular deviation of 6.76 ± 2.49°, coronal global deviation of 0.40 ± 0.24 mm, and apical global deviation of 1.27 ± 0.50 mm achieved using a similar extent of guidance and finalizing the osteotomies with straight drills [32]. Stünkel et al. used a similar approach and found a mean angular deviation of 4.6°, coronal global deviation of 0.62 mm, and apical global deviation of 0.825 mm [25]. The outcome measures of Group 1 in the present study are within the range of the results of previous studies.

In their study, Kivovics et al. performed pilot-guided sCAIS using step drills to finalize implant placement and reported an angular deviation of 3.21 ± 1.52°, coronal global deviation of 1.31 ± 0.42 mm, and apical global deviation of 1.38 ± 0.41 mm [26]. The results of Group 2 in the present study show higher implant placement accuracy than that of Kivovics et al., which may be explained by the presence of teeth on the models used in the present study that may have restricted movement of the template during the interventions.

In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Bover-Ramos et al. reported on the implant positioning accuracy achieved in in vitro studies. According to their results, an angular deviation of 3.13 ± 0.23°, coronal global deviation of 1.00 ± 0.08 mm, and apical global deviation of 1.23 ± 0.10 mm may be expected using fully guided CAIS in in vitro studies [33]. The outcome measures of Group 3 in the present study are within the range of the results of this meta-analysis.

The material and technology used to manufacture surgical templates greatly influences the accuracy of sCAIS. It is paramount to analyse the biomechanical properties (compression and tensile modulus) of the materials used to produce surgical guides and assess their structural changes following compression [21, 22]. In the present study, we used the same technology and material for the preparation of surgical templates to eliminate bias related to the mechanical properties of 3D-printed materials.

According to the literature, fully guided sCAIS provides superior accuracy compared to half-guided and pilot-guided approaches [7, 29]. Therefore, this modality was introduced in the present study as a positive control for the pilot-guided groups. The fully guided approach performed better in all outcome variables compared to the pilot-guided protocol with straight drills and showed significantly lower angular deviation and coronal global deviation values compared to the pilot-guided protocol with step drills. However, there was no significant difference in apical global deviation between fully guided sCAIS and pilot-guided sCAIS completed with step drills. The results of the present study support that fully guided implant placement increases placement accuracy compared to the pilot-guided approach and shows that the angulation of the implant is the outcome most improved by guiding every step of implant bed preparation and implant placement.

According to the literature, implant placement accuracy positively correlates with higher bone density [34]. A resin model with a homogenous structure mimicking D3-type bone according to the Misch classification was used in the present study to eliminate the influence of bone density on implant placement accuracy.

Other factors that influence implant placement accuracy in sCAIS are sleeve height, length of the guided channel, and free drilling distance [35]. In the present study, these values were standardized over all three study groups to eliminate consequent bias.

The present study has several strengths; the same implant brand with uniform diameter and length was used in all study groups, the technique and material used to manufacture the surgical guides were the same in all study groups, and measures were taken to minimize participant bias. Fully guided implant placement showed better implant positioning accuracy than the pilot-guided approaches in the present study, which supports the evidence in the literature [17]. However, during a fully guided intervention, the surgical template remains in place for the whole procedure, inhibiting the cooling of the drills, which may be a disadvantage of this method [18, 19]. Pilot-guided surgery enables abundant cooling during implant bed preparation and requires less sophisticated instrumentation [7]. Heating of the surgical guides during the intervention and consequent dimensional changes may have affected implant placement accuracy in the present study [20]. In fully guided surgery, the surgical template remains in place for the whole duration of the intervention, whereas during pilot-guided surgery, the surgical template is removed following the pilot osteotomy. Therefore, the implant placement accuracy of the fully guided group may have been affected to a greater extent than that of the pilot-guided groups, which may be a limitation of this study. Another limitation of the present study was that it was carried out with only one implant system. Another limitation may have been that the level where the step was located on the drill was constant to prepare an implant bed suitable for the specific dental implant used in this study, which may have influenced implant positioning accuracy as well. The results of this in vitro study should be cautiously applied to the more elaborate clinical environment. Further clinical studies may be required to assess the influence of drill design on the accuracy of dental implant placement using a pilot-guided sCAIS procedure.

Conclusions

According to the results of this in vitro study within its limitations (only one implant system, with a set of step drills with constant step height used, and uneven heat distortion of the templates among the study groups), the design of the drills used to finalize implant osteotomies following pilot-guided sCAIS influences dental implant placement accuracy.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

CAIS:

Computer-assisted implant surgery

CBCT:

Cone beam computed tomography

CI:

Confidence interval

DICOM:

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine

sCAIS:

Static computer-assisted implant surgery

STL:

Standard Tessellation Language

References

  1. Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mangano FG, Admakin O, Lerner H, Mangano C. Artificial Intelligence and Augmented reality for guided Implant surgery planning: a Proof of Concept. J Dent. 2023;104485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104485

  3. Flügge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, Hassan B, Nelson K, Wismeijer D. Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - a prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(9):1113–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mangano C, Luongo F, Migliario M, Mortellaro C, Mangano FG. Combining Intraoral Scans, Cone Beam Computed Tomography and face scans: the virtual patient. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(8):2241–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Joda T, Brägger U, Gallucci G. Systematic literature review of digital three-dimensional superimposition techniques to create virtual dental patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(2):330–7. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Salomo-Coll O, Wang HL. Advantages and disadvantages of implant navigation surgery. A systematic review. Ann Anat. 2019;225:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2019.04.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pimkhaokham A, Jiaranuchart S, Kaboosaya B, Arunjaroensuk S, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N. Can computer-assisted implant surgery improve clinical outcomes and reduce the frequency and intensity of complications in implant dentistry? A critical review. Periodontol 2000. 2022;90(1):197–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12458

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Colombo M, Mangano C, Mijiritsky E, Krebs M, Hauschild U, Fortin T. Clinical applications and effectiveness of guided implant surgery: a critical review based on randomized controlled trials. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0441-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Laleman I, Bernard L, Vercruyssen M, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM, Quirynen M. Guided Implant surgery in the Edentulous Maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(Suppl s):103–17. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.16suppl.g3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):25–42. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(Suppl 11):69–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. D’Haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):121–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chackartchi T, Romanos GE, Parkanyi L, Schwarz F, Sculean A. Reducing errors in guided implant surgery to optimize treatment outcomes. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):64–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12411

  15. Seo C, Juodzbalys G. Accuracy of guided surgery via Stereolithographic Mucosa-Supported Surgical Guide in Implant surgery for Edentulous patient: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2018;9(1):e1. https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2018.9101

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Jorba-García A, González-Barnadas A, Camps-Font O, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(5):2479–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03833-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Marqués-Guasch J, Wang HL. Fully guided Versus Half-Guided and Freehand Implant Placement: systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(6):1159–69. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boa K, Barrak I, Varga E Jr, Joob-Fancsaly A, Varga E, Piffko J. Intraosseous generation of heat during guided surgical drilling: an ex vivo study of the effect of the temperature of the irrigating fluid. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;54(8):904–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu YF, Wu JL, Zhang JX, Peng W, Liao WQ. Numerical and experimental analyses on the temperature distribution in the Dental Implant Preparation Area when using a Surgical Guide. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(1):42–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alhroob KH, Alsabbagh MM, Alsabbagh AY. Effect of the use of a surgical guide on heat generation during implant placement: a comparative in vitro study. Dent Med Probl. 2021;58(1):55–9. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/127605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paradowska-Stolarz A, Malysa A, Mikulewicz M. Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of two chosen resins used in Dentistry for 3D Printing. Materials. 2022;15(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15248956

  22. Paradowska-Stolarz A, Wieckiewicz M, Kozakiewicz M, Jurczyszyn K, Mechanical, Properties. Fractal Dimension, and texture analysis of selected 3D-Printed resins used in Dentistry that underwent the Compression Test. Polymers. 2023;15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15071772

  23. Vercruyssen M, Fortin T, Widmann G, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Different techniques of static/dynamic guided implant surgery: modalities and indications. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):214–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abboud M, Delgado-Ruiz RA, Kucine A, Rugova S, Balanta J, Calvo-Guirado JL. Multistepped Drill Design for single-stage Implant Site Preparation: experimental study in type 2 bone. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(Suppl 2):e472–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stünkel R, Zeller AN, Bohne T, Böhrnsen F, Wedi E, Raschke D, Kauffmann P. Accuracy of intraoral real-time navigation versus static, CAD/CAM-manufactured pilot drilling guides in dental implant surgery: an in vitro study. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00430-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kivovics M, Takács A, Pénzes D, Németh O, Mijiritsky E. Accuracy of dental implant placement using augmented reality-based navigation, static computer assisted implant surgery, and the free-hand method: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2022;119:104070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kikinis R, Pieper SD, Vosburgh KG. 3D slicer: a platform for subject-specific image analysis, visualization, and clinical support. In: Jolesz FA, New York, editors. Intraoperative imaging and image-guided therapy. New York: Springer New York; 2014. pp. 277–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7657-3_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flügge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D, Bohner L, Bornstein M, Burgoyne A, Caram S, et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):436–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hämmerle CH, Cordaro L, van Assche N, Benic GI, Bornstein M, Gamper F, Gotfredsen K, Harris D, Hürzeler M, Jacobs R, et al. Digital technologies to support planning, treatment, and fabrication processes and outcome assessments in implant dentistry. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO consensus conference 2015. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(Suppl 11):97–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Guentsch A, An H, Dentino AR. Precision and trueness of computer-assisted implant placement using static surgical guides with open and closed sleeves: an in vitro analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33(4):441–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13904

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Spille J, Jin F, Behrens E, Açil Y, Lichtenstein J, Naujokat H, Gülses A, Flörke C, Wiltfang J. Comparison of implant placement accuracy in two different preoperative digital workflows: navigated vs. pilot-drill-guided surgery. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00322-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Abduo J, Lau D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in long span edentulous area by novice implant clinicians: a cross-sectional in vitro study comparing fully-guided, pilot-guided, and freehand implant placement protocols. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(3):361–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-Guided surgery: a systematic review and Meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in Vitro Studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(1):101–15. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kivovics M, Pénzes D, Németh O, Mijiritsky E. The influence of Surgical Experience and Bone Density on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant surgery in Edentulous Jaws using a mucosa-supported Surgical Template with a half-guided Implant Placement Protocol-A Randomized Clinical Study. Materials. 2020;13(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245759

  35. Sittikornpaiboon P, Arunjaroensuk S, Kaboosaya B, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. Comparison of the accuracy of implant placement using different drilling systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery: a simulation-based experimental study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(4):635–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany for the implants and surgical sets used in the present study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Open access funding provided by Semmelweis University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi utca 40, Budapest, 1088, Hungary

    Anna Takács, Orsolya Németh & Márton Kivovics

  2. Dental School, Medical Faculty, University of Pécs, Tüzér utca 1, Pécs, 7623, Hungary

    Gyula Marada, Kinga Turzó, Ákos Nagy & Attila Mühl

  3. Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 64239, Israel

    Eitan Mijiritsky

  4. Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 39040, Israel

    Eitan Mijiritsky

Authors
  1. Anna Takács
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gyula Marada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kinga Turzó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ákos Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Orsolya Németh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eitan Mijiritsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Márton Kivovics
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Attila Mühl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Anna Takács: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft. Gyula Marada: Data Curation, Validation. Kinga Turzó: Project administration, Validation. Ákos Nagy: Funding acquisition, Writing - Review & Editing. Orsolya Németh: Resources, Writing - Review & Editing. Eitan Mijiritsky: Supervision, Conceptualization. Márton Kivovics: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing. Attila Mühl: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Márton Kivovics.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takács, A., Marada, G., Turzó, K. et al. Does implant drill design influence the accuracy of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery? An in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 23, 575 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03297-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03297-0

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us