4.5 Article

Deviations of different systems for guided implant surgery

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 1147-1151

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12930

关键词

accuracy; drill guide; guided surgery; sleeve; tolerance

资金

  1. Straumann AG
  2. Camlog
  3. Nobel Biocare Services AG [2013-1194]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo compare the deviation of different systems for Guided Implant Surgery (GIS) related to the specific tolerance between drills and sleeves. Material and methodsFour different systems for GIS and their appropriate sleeves were used: Camlog Guide (CG), Straumann Guided Surgery (SG), SIC Guide (SIG), and NobelGuide (NG). System-appropriate metal sleeves were inserted into plexiglass boxes, and guided drilling procedure was performed (i) holding the drills in the most centric position of the sleeves and (ii) applying forces eccentrically. Digital microscope images of the plexiglass boxes were taken and axial deviations were calculated based on the Pythagorean Theorem, whereas coronal and apical deviations were measured with a corresponding software-device and calculated by subtracting the measured deviations from the original diameter of the drills. Statistically significant differences between centric and eccentric drilling were determined applying the t-test for independent data. ResultsThe axial deviation ranged from 0 degrees (SG) to 5.64 degrees (CG). The apical deviations varied between 0.01mm (SIG) and 3.2mm (NG) and the coronal deviations ranged from 0.01mm (SIG) to 1.60mm (NG). In terms of angular deviation, there were statistically significant differences between centric and eccentric drilling for all four systems. Coronal and apical deviations, showed no statistical significance between centric and eccentric drilling for SIG and NG, in contrast to CG and SG. ConclusionsThe clinician may have considerable impact on the accuracy of GIS when applying eccentric forces.

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

4.5
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