Validation of an Intra-Oral Scan Method Versus Cone Beam Computed Tomography Superimposition to Assess the Accuracy between Planned and Achieved Dental Implants: A Randomized In Vitro Study

Alessio Franchina, Luigi V. Stefanelli, Fabio Maltese, George A. Mandelaris, Alessandro Vantaggiato, Michele Pagliarulo, Nicola Pranno, Edoardo Brauner, Francesca De Angelis and Stefano Di Carlo
Additional contact information
Alessio Franchina: Private Practice, Periodontics and Dental Implant Surgery, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
Luigi V. Stefanelli: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
Fabio Maltese: Private Practice, 00192 Rome, Italy
George A. Mandelaris: Private Practice, Periodontics and Dental Implant Surgery, Periodontal Medicine & Surgical Specialists, LTD, Park Ridge, Oakbrook Terrace, Chicago, IL 60601, USA
Alessandro Vantaggiato: Private Practice, 73100 Lecce, Italy
Michele Pagliarulo: Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Plovdiv, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Nicola Pranno: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
Edoardo Brauner: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
Francesca De Angelis: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
Stefano Di Carlo: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 24, 1-20

Abstract: Computer aided implantology is the safest way to perform dental implants. The research of high accuracy represents a daily effort. The validated method to assess the accuracy of placed dental implants is the superimposition of a pre-operative and a post-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with planned and placed implants. This procedure is accountable for a biologic cost for the patient. To investigate alternative procedure for accuracy assessment, fifteen resin casts were printed. For each model, six implants were digitally planned and then placed following three different approaches: (a) template guided free hand, (b) static computer aided implantology (SCAI), and (c) dynamic computer aided implantology (DCAI). The placement accuracy of each implant was performed via two methods: the CBCT comparison described above and a matching between implant positions recovered from the original surgical plan with those obtained with a post-operative intraoral scan (IOS). Statistically significant mean differences between guided groups (SCAI and DCAI) and the free hand group were found at all considered deviations, while no differences resulted between the SCAI and DCAI approaches. Moreover, no mean statistically significant differences were found between CBCT and IOS assessment, confirming the validity of this new method.

Keywords: accuracy; superimposition; intra-oral scanning; surgical guides; static computer aided implantology; dynamic computer aided implantology; dynamic navigation implantology (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9358/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9358/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9358-:d:461860

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().