Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [1]
The overall outcome of this study indicates the superiority of the FG protocol in comparison to PG and FH protocols for placing single implants. With the exception of vertical deviation, this was obvious for horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations that were closer to the planned implant for the FG protocol than the other protocols. In addition, this superiority was shown for anterior and posterior implants. Such observations confirm the advantage of the FG protocol in controlling all the steps of osteotomy and implant placement [7, 9, 15, 16]. On the contrary, the inaccuracies of the PG and FH protocols were generally similar and tended to be approximately double the inaccuracies of the FG protocol. Thus, the hypothesis that the accuracies of all the protocols were similar was rejected. In the present study, different software programs were needed to design guides for the FG and PG protocols. While this may have influenced the outcome, the differences between the FG and PG protocols seem to be related to the variations in drilling and implant placement. In addition, since the anterior and posterior implants of the FG protocol had similar accuracy, the hypothesis that there is no influence of the location of the implant on the accuracy of implant placement was accepted. However, this hypothesis cannot be accepted for the PG and FH protocols as the anterior implants were generally more accurate than the posterior implants. Therefore, as per earlier studies, inexperienced clinicians may benefit from FG implant placement [12,13,14]. For example, Rungcharassaeng et al. found that the FG protocol reduced differences between experienced and inexperienced operators for placing single posterior implants [12]. Likewise, Park et al. and Marheineke et al. found no difference between experienced and inexperienced operators when FG protocol guides were used, while the differences became obvious when implants were placed without surgical guides [13, 14]. According to Schulz et al., in the hand of final-year dental students, FG implant placement was more accurate than PG implant placement [15].
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Background : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [1]
- Background : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [2]
- Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [1]
- Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [2]
- Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [3]
- Methods : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [4]
- Results : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [1]
- Results : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [2]
- Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [1]
- Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [2]
- Discussion : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [3]
- Conclusions : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Availability of data and materials : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Abbreviations : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [1]
- References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [2]
- References : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols [3]
- Acknowledgements : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Funding : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Author information : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Ethics declarations : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Additional information : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Rights and permissions : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- About this article : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Table 1 Summary of implant vertical, horizontal and angle deviations from the planned implant : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in anterior and posterior sites by clinicians new to implant dentistry: in vitro comparison of fully guided, pilot-guided, and freehand protocols
- Fig. 1. Flowchart summarizing the different phases of the experiment : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 2. a Schematic diagram illustrating the measurement of vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations. b Three forms of horizontal deviation were measured: maximum, mesiodistal, and buccolingual directions : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 3. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of vertical deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 4. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 6. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum horizontal apex deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of horizontal neck deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 8. Box plot diagrams illustrating the distribution of maximum angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant
- Fig. 9. Scatter diagrams illustrating the distribution of angle deviation of each protocol. a Anterior implants. b Posterior implants : Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant