Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 9, 2025
Pedicle Screw Placement Using an Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Display in a Porcine Model
Published on: May 24, 2024
A multifunctional scannable mounting device for computer guided implant surgery: An in vitro study
Daniel Rotenberg1, Yaniv Mayer2, Jacob Horwitz3
1Intern, Rambam health care campus, Department of Periodontology and Implant dentistry, Haifa, Israel.
Statement Of Problem:
As part of the growing digitization of the dental field, clinicians are looking for ways to simplify digital workflow, reduce chairside time, and provide new work patterns for future applications. Whether scanning with a multifunctional apparatus (MFA) scan body results in improved scanning is unclear.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the horizontal, vertical, and angular deviations with the MFA scan body with a commercially available scan body (SBIO).
Material And Methods:
Sixteen identically printed edentulous maxillary models were used to plan two Ø3.8×11.5-mm implants in the right maxillary first molar and left maxillary central incisor locations. Two implants in each model were installed using a surgical guide. The models were scanned using an intraoral scanner with MFA and then rescanned twice, with SBIO using the intraoral scanner and a laboratory 3D scanner. The implants were digitally positioned according to the scanned MFA and SBIO locations in standard tessellation language (STL) files. These STL files were superimposed on the reference laboratory 3D scanner STL files. Linear measurements included implant apex/cervical horizontal/vertical deviations, as well as implant axis angular deviations. Normality was evaluated with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Paired samples t tests (2 sided) were used for the mean SBIO-MFA deviation difference. To compare the molar/incisor sites, paired samples Wilcoxon tests were used (α=.05 for all tests).
Results:
No statistically significant differences were found between the MFA/ SBIO deviations, for each of the 10 sites × deviation combinations (P>.05). Overall, the lowest endpoint of the 95% confidence intervals among the 8 linear measurement comparisons was -0.107 mm (coronal vertical deviation, right maxillary first molar site) and -0.30 degrees between the 2 angular measurement comparisons.
Conclusions:
The current in vitro study demonstrated high accuracy for the novel MFA device, similar to that of the standard SBIO scan body. Furthermore, the current study offers an alternative technique to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement by using scanning and back programming over the traditional postplacement cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning.
