Evaluation of Three Different Validation Procedures regarding the Accuracy of Template-Guided Implant Placement: An In Vitro Study
Corresponding Author
Christoph Vasak MD, DMD
Oral surgeon and senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Reprint requests: Dr. Christoph Vasak, Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, Vienna 1090, Austria; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorGeorg D. Strbac DMD
Oral surgeon and senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorChristian D. Huber MSc
senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorStefan Lettner
senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorAndré Gahleitner MD, DMD, PhD
associate professor
Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorWerner Zechner MD, DMD, PhD
associate professor, Co-Head of the Department of Oral Surgery
Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Christoph Vasak MD, DMD
Oral surgeon and senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Reprint requests: Dr. Christoph Vasak, Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, Vienna 1090, Austria; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorGeorg D. Strbac DMD
Oral surgeon and senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorChristian D. Huber MSc
senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorStefan Lettner
senior scientist
Department of Oral Surgery, Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorAndré Gahleitner MD, DMD, PhD
associate professor
Department of Oral Surgery, Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorWerner Zechner MD, DMD, PhD
associate professor, Co-Head of the Department of Oral Surgery
Bernhard Gottlieb University School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Purpose
The study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the NobelGuideTM (Medicim/Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) concept maximally reducing the influence of clinical and surgical parameters. Moreover, the study was to compare and validate two validation procedures versus a reference method.
Material and Methods
Overall, 60 implants were placed in 10 artificial edentulous mandibles according to the NobelGuideTM protocol. For merging the pre- and postoperative DICOM data sets, three different fusion methods (Triple Scan Technique, NobelGuideTM Validation software, and AMIRA® software [VSG – Visualization Sciences Group, Burlington, MA, USA] as reference) were applied. Discrepancies between the virtual and the actual implant positions were measured.
Results
The mean deviations measured with AMIRA® were 0.49 mm (implant shoulder), 0.69 mm (implant apex), and 1.98°mm (implant axis). The Triple Scan Technique as well as the NobelGuideTM Validation software revealed similar deviations compared with the reference method. A significant correlation between angular and apical deviations was seen (r = 0.53; p < .001). A greater implant diameter was associated with greater deviations (p = .03).
Conclusion
The Triple Scan Technique as a system-independent validation procedure as well as the NobelGuideTM Validation software are in accordance with the AMIRA® software. The NobelGuideTM system showed similar or less spatial and angular deviations compared with others.
References
- 1 Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, et al. Accuracy of implant placement based on presurgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 816–821.
- 2 Vercruyssen M, Jacobs R, Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D. The use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means of implants and its transfer to the surgical field: a critical review on accuracy. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35: 454–474.
- 3 BouSerhal C, Jacobs R, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Imaging technique selection for the preoperative planning of oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2002; 4: 156–172.
- 4 Vasak C, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Strbac G, Schemper M, Zechner W. Computed tomography-based evaluation of template (NobelGuide™)-guided implant positions: a prospective radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1157–1163.
- 5 Ruppin J, Popovic A, Strauss M, Spüntrup E, Steiner A, Stoll C. Evaluation of the accuracy of three different computer-aided surgery systems in dental implantology: optical tracking vs stereolithographic splint systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 709–716.
- 6 Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE, McGlumphy EA, Rosenstiel SF. Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 394–401.
- 7 Pettersson A, Kero T, Gillot L, et al. Accuracy of CAD/CAM-guided surgical template implant surgery on human cadavers: part I. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 334–342.
- 8 Pettersson A, Komiyama A, Hultin M, Näsström K, Klinge B. Accuracy of virtually planned and template guided implant surgery on edentate patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00285.x
- 9 Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE. A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20(Suppl. 4): 73–86.
- 10 Widmann G, Bale RJ. Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery – a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21: 305–313.
- 11 Di Giacomo GA, Cury PR, de Araujo NS, Sendyk WR, Sendyk CL. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol 2005; 76: 503–507.
- 12 Ersoy AE, Turkyilmaz I, Ozan O, McGlumphy EA. Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 1339–1345.
- 13 Block MS, Chandler C. Computed tomography-guided surgery: complications associated with scanning, processing, surgery and prosthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67(11 Suppl): 13–22.
- 14 Verstreken K, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Martens K, Marchal G, van Steenberghe D, Suetens P. An image-guided planning system for endosseous oral implants. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998; 17: 842–852.
- 15 Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 571–577.
- 16 Pollock R, Mozer P, Guzzo TJ, et al. Prospects in percutaneous ablative targeting: comparison of a computer-assisted navigation system and the AcuBot Robotic System. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1269–1272.
- 17 Wassilew GI, Janz V, Heller M, Wenzl M, Perka C, Hasart O. Validation of a CT image based software for three-dimensional measurement of acetabular cup orientation. Technol Health Care 2011; 19: 185–193.
- 18 Wohlrab D, Radetzki F, Noser H, Mendel T. Cup positioning in total hip arthoplasty: spatial alignment of the acetabular entry plane. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132: 1–7.
- 19 Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D, Marchal G, Suetens P. Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997; 16: 187–198.
- 20 Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. Lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0. 2012. http://www.CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. (Accessed October 22, 2012).
- 21 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Interclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.
- 22 R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2012. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org. (Accessed October 22, 2012).
- 23 Wickham H. Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-387-98140-6.
- 24 Soares MM, Harari ND, Cardoso ES, Manso MC, Conz MB, Vidigal GM Jr. An in vitro model to evaluate the accuracy of guided surgery systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27: 824–831.
- 25 Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 108: 181–188.
- 26 Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 234–242.
- 27 Van Assche N, Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, Teughels W, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Accuracy of computer-aided implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23(Suppl 6): 112–123.
- 28 Van Assche N, Quirynen M. Tolerance within a surgical guide. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 455–458.
- 29 Dreiseidler T, Neugebauer J, Ritter L, et al. Accuracy of a newly developed integrated system for dental implant planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 1191–1199.
- 30 Ohtani T, Kusumoto N, Wakabayashi K, et al. Application of haptic device to implant dentistry – accuracy verification of drilling into a pig bone. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 75–81.
- 31 Koop R, Vercruyssen M, Vermeulen K, Quirynen M. Tolerance within the sleeve inserts of different surgical guides for guided implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02436.x.
- 32 Verhamme LM, Meijer GJ, Boumans T, Schutyser F, Bergé SJ, Maal TJ. A clinically relevant validation method for implant placement after virtual planning. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02565.x.
- 33 Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Machtei EE. Accuracy of a computerized tomography-guided template-assisted implant placement system: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 1156–1162.
- 34 Birkfellner W, Solar P, Gahleitner A, et al. In-vitro assessment of a registration protocol for image guided implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 69–78.
- 35 Cavalcanti MGP, Ruprecht A, Vannier MW. 3D volume rendering using multislice CT for dental implants. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 218–223.
- 36 Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, et al. A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-slice ct (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75: 270–274.
- 37 Medelnik J, Hertrich K, Steinhäuser-Andresen S, Hirschfelder U, Hofmann E. Accuracy of anatomical landmark identification using different CBCT- and MSCT-based 3D images: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop 2011; 72: 261–278.
- 38 Primo BT, Presotto AC, de Oliveira HW, et al. Accuracy assessment of prototypes produced using multi-slice and cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 1291–1295.
- 39
Poeschl PW, Schmidt N, Guevara-Rojas G, et al. Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning. Clin Oral Investig 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0704-6.
10.1007/s00784‐012‐0704‐6 Google Scholar
- 40 Widmann G, Zangerl A, Schullian P, Fasser M, Puelacher W, Bale R. Do image modality and registration method influence the accuracy of craniofacial navigation? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70: 2165–2173.
- 41 van Steenberghe D, Naert I, Andersson M, Brajnovic I, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Suetens P. A custom template and definitive prosthesis allowing immediate implant loading in the maxilla: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 663–670.
- 42 Fortin T, Champleboux G, Bianchi S, Buatois H, Coudert JL. Precision of transfer of preoperative planning for oral implants based on cone-beam CT-scan images through a robotic drilling machine. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13: 651–656.
- 43 Stumpel LJ. Deformation of stereolithographically produced surgical guides: an observational case series report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 41: 442–453.
- 44 Nickenig HJ, Eitner S, Rothamel D, Wichmann M, Zöller JE. Possibilities and limitations of implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates. Int J Comput Dent 2012; 15: 9–21.
Citing Literature
