Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study

Abstract

Statement of problem: Precise treatment planning before implant surgery is necessary to identify vital structures and to ensure a predictable restorative outcome.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement by using 3 different types of surgical guide: bone-supported, tooth-supported, and mucosa-supported.

Material and methods: Thirty acrylic resin mandibles were fabricated with stereolithography (SLA) based on data from the cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scan of an edentulous patient. Ten of the mandibles were modified digitally before fabrication with the addition of 4 teeth, and 10 of the mandibles were modified after fabrication with soft acrylic resin to simulate mucosa. Each acrylic resin mandible had 5 implants virtually planned in a 3-D software program. A total of 150 implants were planned and placed by using SLA guides. Presurgical and postsurgical CBCT scans were superimposed to compare the virtual implant placement with the actual implant placement. For statistical analyses, a linear mixed models approach and t-test with the 2-sided alpha level set at .016 were used. All reported P values were adjusted by the Dunn-Sidak method to control the Type I error rate across multiple pairwise comparisons.

Results: The mean angular deviation of the long axis between the planned and placed implants was 2.2 ±1.2 degrees; the mean deviations in linear distance between the planned and placed implants were 1.18 ±0.42 mm at the implant neck and 1.44 ±0.67 mm at the implant apex for all 150 implants. After the superimposition procedure, the angular deviation of the placed implants was 2.26 ±1.30 degrees with the tooth-supported, 2.17 ±1.02 degrees with the bone-supported, and 2.29 ±1.28 degrees with the mucosa-supported SLA guide. The mean deviations in linear distance between the planned and placed implants at the neck and apex were 1.00 ±0.33 mm and 1.15 ±0.42 mm for the tooth-supported guides; 1.08 ±0.33 mm and 1.53 ±0.90 mm for the bone-supported guides; and 1.47 ±0.43 mm and 1.65 ±0.48 mm for the mucosa-supported SLA surgical guides.

Conclusions: The results of this study show that stereolithographic surgical guides may be reliable in implant placement and that: 1) there was no statistically significant difference among the 3 types of guide when comparing angular deviation and 2) mucosa-supported guides were less accurate than both tooth-supported and bone-supported guides for linear deviation at the implant neck and apex.