Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 1, 2025
Guided Endodontics: Three-Dimensional Planning and Template-Aided Preparation of Endodontic Access Cavities
Published on: May 24, 2022
Accuracy of computer-assisted, template-guided implant placement compared with conventional implant placement by
David Schneider1, Caroline Sax1, Manuel Sancho-Puchades1
1Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Objectives:
To compare free-hand to computer-assisted implant planning and placement (CAIPP) regarding planned to achieved implant position.
Material And Methods:
Forty-eight cast/bone models were mounted in mannequin heads. On each side, a tooth gap of different sizes was created. In the test group (T), study implants were placed using a CAD-CAM guide based on virtual planning. In the control (C), free-hand implant placement was performed. After CBCT scanning, the implant position was compared with the planned position. Descriptive statistics were applied, and ANOVA was used to identify differences between groups and gaps. (p < .05).
Results:
In C, mean lateral deviations at the implant base amounted to 0.7 mm (max. 1.8) (large gap) and 0.49 mm (1.22) (small gap). In T, 0.18 mm (0.49) and 0.24 mm (0.52) were recorded. At the apex, 0.77 mm (2.04) (large gap) and 0.51 mm (1.24) (small gap) were measured in C, and 0.31 mm (0.83)/0.34 mm (0.93) in T. Mean vertical deviations in C measured 0.46 mm (1.26) (large gap) and 0.45 mm (1.7) (small gap). In T, 0.14 mm (0.44) and 0.28 mm (0.78) were recorded. Mean angular deviations of 1.7° (3.2°) were observed in C (large gap) and 1.36° (2.1°) (small gap). In T, mean values were 1.57° (3.3°) and 1.32° (3.4°). Lateral and vertical deviations were significantly different between groups (not gaps), angular between gaps (not groups).
Conclusions:
CAIPP protocols showed smaller deviations irrespective of the size of the tooth gap. In C, the gap size had an influence on the error in angulation only.
