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
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
author: Jaafar Abduo, Douglas Lau | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
| Vertical implant deviation | |||||||
| Anterior implant | Posterior implant | p values between anterior and posterior implants | |||||
| FG | PG | FH | FG | PG | FH | ||
| Mean (mm) | 0.21 | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.64 | 0.49 | FG = 0.07 |
| SD (mm) | 0.12 | 0.52 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.37 | 0.22 | PG = 0.27 |
| Maximum (mm) | 0.39 | 1.65 | 0.81 | 0.80 | 1.13 | 0.80 | FH = 0.05 |
| Minimum (mm) | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.07 | |
| p values | All groups = 0.12 | All groups = 0.08 | |||||
| Maximum horizontal implant neck deviation | |||||||
| Anterior implant | Posterior implant | p values between anterior and posterior implants | |||||
| FG | PG | FH | FG | PG | FH | ||
| Mean (mm) | 0.47 | 1.14 | 0.79 | 0.52 | 1.01 | 1.27 | FG = 0.35 |
| SD (mm) | 0.25 | 0.47 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.22 | PG = 0.23 |
| Maximum (mm) | 1.07 | 2.17 | 1.35 | 0.99 | 1.41 | 1.62 | FH = 0.0003 |
| Minimum (mm) | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.99 | |
| p values | All groups = 0.001 | All groups = 0.000 | |||||
| FG vs PG = 0.001 | FG vs PG = 0.001 | ||||||
| FG vs FH = 0.13 | FG vs FH = 0.000 | ||||||
| PG vs FH = 0.90 | PG vs FH = 0.08 | ||||||
| Maximum horizontal implant apex deviation | |||||||
| Anterior implant | Posterior implant | p values between anterior and posterior implants | |||||
| FG | PG | FH | FG | PG | FH | ||
| Mean (mm) | 0.71 | 1.02 | 1.12 | 0.74 | 1.35 | 1.81 | FG = 0.37 |
| SD (mm) | 0.24 | 0.54 | 0.71 | 0.23 | 0.55 | 0.53 | PG = 0.10 |
| Maximum (mm) | 1.12 | 1.90 | 2.30 | 1.03 | 2.17 | 2.47 | FH = 0.01 |
| Minimum (mm) | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 1.17 | |
| p values | All groups = 0.22 | All groups = 0.000 | |||||
| FG vs PG = 0.02 | |||||||
| FG vs FH = 0.00 | |||||||
| PG vs FH = 0.08 | |||||||
| Maximum implant angle deviation | |||||||
| Anterior implant | Posterior implant | p values between anterior and posterior implants | |||||
| FG | PG | FH | FG | PG | FH | ||
| Mean (°) | 2.42 | 4.65 | 4.79 | 2.61 | 7.79 | 4.77 | FG = 0.35 |
| SD (°) | 0.98 | 1.78 | 2.08 | 1.23 | 2.64 | 2.09 | PG = 0.003 |
| Maximum (°) | 3.91 | 9.29 | 7.40 | 5.07 | 12.79 | 8.21 | FH = 0.49 |
| Minimum (°) | 1.03 | 2.80 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 4.28 | 1.26 | |
| p values | All groups = 0.01 | All groups = 0.000 | |||||
| FG vs PG = 0.02 | FG vs PG = 0.000 | ||||||
| FG vs FH = 0.01 | FG vs FH = 0.07 | ||||||
| PG vs FH = 0.98 | PG vs FH = 0.01 | ||||||
Table 1 Summary of implant vertical, horizontal and angle deviations from the planned implant
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