Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 28, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
2D/3D accuracies of implant position after guided surgery using different surgical protocols: A retrospective study
C Monaco1, A Arena1, L Corsaletti1
1Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Purpose:
To compare the 2D and 3D positional accuracy of four guided surgical protocols using an analysis of linear and angular deviations.
Methods:
DICOM and .STLs files obtained from a CBCT and a digital impression were superimposed with software to plan implant position. Fifty-six patients were subdivided into 4 groups: FGA group (template support [Ts]: teeth [T]; bed preparation [Bp]: fully guided [FG]; implant insertion [Ii]: 3D template [3Dt]; device [D]: manual adapter [MA], FGM group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: fully guided mounter [FGM]), PG group (Ts: T; Bp: FG; Ii: manual; D: none) and MS group (Ts: mucosa; Bp: FG; Ii: 3Dt; D: FGM). The position of 120 implants was assessed by superimposing the planned and final position recorded with a digital impression.
Results:
In FGA group, 3D deviations were 0.92 ± 0.52 mm at the implant head and 1.14 ± 0.54 mm at the apex, and the angular deviation (ang. dev.) was 2.45 ± 1.24°. In FGM group, were 0.911 ± 0.44 mm (head) and 1.11 ± 0.54 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 2.73 ± 1.96°. In PG group, were 0.95 ± 0.47 mm (head) and 1.17 ± 0.488 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 3.71 ± 1.67°. In MS group, were 1.15 ± 0.45 mm (head) and 1.42 ± 0.45 mm (apex), and the ang. dev. was 4.19 ± 2.62°. Ang. dev. of MS group was different from the other groups (P < 0.05).
Conclusions:
Guided surgery showed a sufficient accuracy.
