Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Mar;38(3):15. English. Original Article. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-016-0063-3
Moon SY , Lee KR , Kim SG , Son MK .
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, 375 Seosuk dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 501-759 South Korea.
Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Chosun University, 375 Seosuk dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 501-759 South Korea.
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, 375 Seosuk dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 501-759 South Korea. son0513@Chosun.ac.kr
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The utilization of a cone-beam computed tomography (CT)-assisted surgical template allows for predictable results because implant placement plans can be performed in the actual surgery. In order to assess the accuracy of the CT-guided surgery, angular errors and shoulder/apex distance errors were evaluated by data fusion from before and after the placement. METHODS: Computer-guided implant surgery was performed in five patients with 19 implants. In order to analyze differences of the implant fixture body between preoperative planned implant and postoperative placed implant, angular error and distance errors were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean angular errors between the preoperative planned and postoperative placed implant was 3.84° ± 1.49°; the mean distance errors between the planned and placed implants were 0.45 ± 0.48 mm horizontally and 0.63 ± 0.51 mm vertically at the implant neck and 0.70 ± 0.63 mm horizontally and 0.64 ± 0.57 mm vertically at the implant apex for all 19 implants. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to be able to utilize these methods in actual clinical settings by improving the various problems, including the considerations of patient mouth opening limitations, surgical guide preparation, and fixation.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.