Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup
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]

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

author: Jaafar Abduo, Douglas Lau | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID

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:


id post:
New thoughts
Me:
search
glossary
en in