Share Page:

Volume 28 , Issue 2
March/April 2013

Pages 563–572

Split-Mouth Comparison of the Accuracy of Computer-Generated and Conventional Surgical Guides

Nathaniel E. Farley, DDS, MS/Kelly Kennedy, DDS, MS/Edwin A. McGlumphy, DDS, MS/Nancy L. Clelland, DMD, MS

PMID: 23527361
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3025

Purpose: Recent clinical studies have shown that implant placement is highly predictable with computergenerated surgical guides; however, the reliability of these guides has not been compared to that of conventional guides clinically. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of reproducing planned implant positions with computer-generated and conventional surgical guides using a split-mouth design. Materials and Methods: Ten patients received two implants each in symmetric locations. All implants were planned virtually using a software program and information from cone beam computed tomographic scans taken with scan appliances in place. Patients were randomly selected for computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM)–guided implant placement on their right or left side. Conventional guides were used on the contralateral side. Patients underwent operative cone beam computed tomography postoperatively. Planned and actual implant positions were compared using three-dimensional analyses capable of measuring volume overlap as well as differences in angles and coronal and apical positions. Results were compared using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance and were further analyzed using a Bartlett test for unequal variance (α = .05). Results: Implants placed with CAD/CAM guides were closer to the planned positions in all eight categories examined. However, statistically significant differences were shown only for coronal horizontal distances. It was also shown that CAD/CAM guides had less variability than conventional guides, which was statistically significant for apical distance. Conclusion: Implants placed using CAD/CAM surgical guides provided greater accuracy in a lateral direction than conventional guides. In addition, CAD/CAM guides were more consistent in their deviation from the planned locations than conventional guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:563–572. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3025

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2018 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us