Resumen de Evaluation of the Accuracy of a New Geometric Approach to Implant Guidance
Sean Meitner, Stephen Phillips, Leandro G. Carneiro, Jack Caton, Fawad Javed, Changyong Feng, Gregori M. Kurtzman
Purpose: Implant surgical guides are often fabricated using CBCT technology. In this study, an alternative technique is proposed. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the guide sleeve corrections of a geometric approach to guided surgery to the accuracy of in vitro studies of stereolithographic guides.
Materials and methods: Four arch forms were milled from acrylic blocks each with 12 root form sites. Root form inserts were made. Holes were milled in the inserts at arbitrary angles. Guide posts were placed in these sites. Guide sleeves were placed on the posts and connected with light-cured resin to form verification jigs. The goal was to correct the angles of the guide sleeves to a vertical position 90 degrees from the base of the arch forms. The initial angles from the vertical and horizontal positions of the center of each guide sleeve were determined radiographically and geometrically. Horizontal and angle corrections were made using two-piece guide posts. Guide sleeves placed over the corrected guide posts were connected with light-cured resin, forming new verification jigs. The accuracy of the angle correction and the coronal horizontal and apical horizontal deviations of the 3-mm guide sleeves were determined. The experimental sites were divided into two groups to determine if the size of the initial angles of the guide sleeves had any effect on the accuracy of the corrections.
Results: The initial angles of the guide sleeves before corrections revealed the mean difference between the two methods of measurements in groups 1 and 2 as 0.36 degrees (P = .14) and 0.69 degrees (P = .07), respectively. A comparison of the angle error measurements from 90 degrees after corrections between the two groups in the mesiodistal and buccolingual planes was not significant. The coronal and apical horizontal deviations after corrections revealed a significant difference between the two groups at the coronal level (P = .005) but not at the apical level (P = .14). In comparison of the methods of the two measurements of the angle error from vertical after corrections, the mean difference was 1.23 degrees (P = .01) and 0.69 degrees (P = .02).
Conclusion: The in vitro accuracy of the guide sleeve corrections made with the geometric approach for implant guidance was compared to the results of the meta-analyses of in vitro studies of implant placement with stereolithographic guides. The mean errors were smaller and within the recommendations of the EAO Consensus Conference of 2012.
