Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Influence of guide support on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS) in partially
David Kasradze1, Ricardas Kubilius2
1Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Eiveniu Street 2, Kaunas, 50161, Lithuania. david.kasradze@lsmu.lt.
Purpose:
To evaluate the influence of guide support on the accuracy of sCAIS using a keyless guiding system in different cases of partial edentulism.
Methods:
Sixty polyamide models of partially edentulous maxillae, simulating anterior and posterior single-tooth gaps as well as anterior and distal extended edentulous areas, were fabricated. Full-arch, 2-teeth, and 4-teeth supported surgical guides were used to place implants at FDI 15, 17, 21, 26 sites in Model A and at FDI 12, 22, 15 sites in Model B. In total, 210 replica implants were placed using 120 surgical guides in seven implantation sites. Three-dimensional crestal and apical, angular and vertical deviations from the planned implant positions were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis H test with Dunn's procedure for multiple pairwise comparisons.
Results:
Overall median 3D crestal and apical deviations of implants placed with 2-teeth guide support (0.62 mm [0.45-0.84], 0.92 mm [0.69-1.25]) and 4-teeth guide support (0.65 mm [0.52-0.81], 1.01 mm [0.8-1.26]) were significalty lower compared to the full-arch support group (0.86 mm [0.63-0.98], 1.26 mm [0.98-1.52]) with values of p < 0.017. Overall angular and vertical deviations of implants placed with 2-teeth guide support (2.61° [1.71-3.75], 0.32 mm [0.15-0.44]) were significantly lower compare to the full-arch support group (3.22° [2.25-4.41], 0.46 mm [0.24-0.62]). In the subgroup analysis, implants placed at the FDI 12, 22, and 15 positions exhibited significantly higher 3D and angular deviations with full-arch guide support, whereas the 3D apical and angular deviations of were significantly lower with 2-teeth guide support at the FDI 21 site.
Conclusions:
The deviations in all guide support groups did not exceed the recommended safety margins. Statistically significant differences were found between guide support groups, with influence of guide support on the accuracy of sCAIS varying across different implantation sites.
Trial Registration:
Not applicable.
More Related Videos
05:54Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
07:14Guided Endodontics: Three-Dimensional Planning and Template-Aided Preparation of Endodontic Access Cavities
Published on: May 24, 2022
