Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Guided Surgery: An In Vitro Trial

Purpose: To examine how the accuracy (linear and angular deviation) of implants placed using computer-guided surgery varies in relation to the type of surgical technique (fully guided, half-guided, vs freehand implant placement), bone density (type D1 to D4 bone), and type of support surface (tooth- vs mucosa-supported). Materials and Methods: A total of 32 mandible models were produced (16 partially edentulous and 16 edentulous) using acrylic resin, each calibrated to a different bone density (D1 to D4). Four implants planned using Mguide software were placed in each acrylic resin mandible. A total of 128 implants were placed, distributed according to bone density (D1 to D4, n = 32), the degree of intervention in the surgery (fully guided [FG] = 80, half-guided [HG] = 32, and freehand surgery [F] = 16), and the type of support surface (tooth-supported: n = 64 and mucosa-supported: n = 64). To determine the linear, vertical, and angular deviations between the planned three-dimensional position and the actual position of the implants, the linear and angular difference between them was calculated, with the analysis performed through preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans. The effect was analyzed using parametric tests and linear regression models. Results: All parameters of linear and angular discrepancy in the various regions analyzed (neck, body, and apex) were primarily influenced by the technique and, to a lesser extent, by the bone type, although both variables were predictive and highly significant. These discrepancies tend to increase in completely edentulous models. The regression models show that linear deviations increase by between 630.2 μm at neck level in the buccolingual direction and 836.7 μm at apex level in the mesiodistal direction when comparing the FG and HG techniques. This increase is accumulative when comparing the HG and F techniques. Regarding the effect of bone density, the regression models found that linear discrepancies increase by between 132.6 μm in the axial direction and 199.0 μm at the apex of the implant in the buccolingual direction with each reduction in bone density (D1 to D4). Conclusion: According to this in vitro study, the highest implant placement predictability is found among dentate models with high bone density and a fully guided surgical technique.