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
In relation to the maximum angle deviation (Fig. 8), the FG protocol had less deviation than the other protocols for anterior (2.42 ± 0.98°) and posterior (2.61 ± 1.23°) implants. The PG (4.65 ± 1.78°) and FH (4.79 ± 2.08°) protocols were similar for anterior implant placement, while the FH protocol seemed more accurate for posterior implants (4.77 ± 2.09°) than the PG protocol (7.79 ± 2.64°). The FG and FH protocols showed similar angle accuracy for anterior and posterior implants. However, the PG protocol showed inferior angle accuracy of posterior implants than anterior implants. Figure 9 indicates that the FG protocol implant angulations were centered to the middle of the graph confirming the least deviation in relation to the other protocols. The PG protocol showed a tendency to be skewed to the lingual aspect for anterior and posterior implants. The lingual tilting was more noticeable for the posterior implants. In addition, the posterior PG protocol implants were associated with distal deviation. Similarly, the FH protocol showed more lingual tilting.
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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,
- 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
- 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,
- 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,
- 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,
- 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,
- 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,
- 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
- 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