Accuracy of digital light processing versus selective LASER sintering surgical-templates for All-On-Four technique of computer guided dental implant placement in the mandible: a prospective double blind randomized clinical trial | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 16, Volume 64, Issue 4 - October (Oral Surgery), October 2018, Page 3245-3256 PDF (1.78 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2018.78547 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Rehab Elsharkawy1; Eatemad Taha2; Ahmed Elsharkawy3; Ahmed Hassan4 | ||||
| 1Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. Egypt | ||||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Ahram Canadian University. Egypt. | ||||
| 3Lecturer of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. Egypt. | ||||
| 4Assistant Lecturer, Department of Oral Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Fayoum University. Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Purpose: Success and safety of dental implants requires accurate treatment planning and precise implant placement. There should be no deviation between the virtually planned implant position and the actual implant position after the implant installation regardless the technique of construction of the surgical-guide. So this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of two different CAD/CAM surgical guides in placement of all-on-4 implants. Materials and methods: A prospective randomized controlled double blind clinical study was carried out, in which twenty four implants were placed in 6 edentulous patients. Patients were randomly allocated into one of the two groups: control group where surgeries were done using digital light processing (DLP) surgicalguides and study group where implants were placed using selective laser sintering (SLS) surgicalguides. Each patient received 4 implants in the anterior part of the mandible, 2 axial implants in the center and 2 tilted implants at the distal ends. CBCT were taken to the implants after the surgery and the actual implant positions were compared to the planned implant position. The deviation between the planned and actual implant positions were compared between the 2 techniques of surgical guide constructions. Results: The results of comparison between the two groups showed a statistically significant difference for all comparisons, with the SLS fabricated guides showing higher deviation from control than those fabricated by the DLP printer. Conclusion: Although the computer manufactured surgical guides simplifies surgery and help in optimal implant placement, there is still evidence of degree of deviation from the planned implants positions in both of the surgical guides, particularly the SLS fabricated guides so a safety zone so a safety zone is recommended during planning to avoid to avoid critical anatomical structures. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| All-on-four; tilted implants; implant placement; immediate loading; 3D printed | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 211 PDF Download: 443 |
||||
