scholarly journals Exploring training dental implant placement using computer-guided implant navigation system

2019 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. e21
Author(s):  
Janina Golob Deeb ◽  
Sompop Bencharit ◽  
Caroline K. Carrico ◽  
Marija Lukic ◽  
Daniel Hawkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Implant Placement

Exploring training dental implant placement using computer‐guided implant navigation system for predoctoral students: A pilot study

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janina Golob Deeb ◽  
Sompop Bencharit ◽  
Caroline K. Carrico ◽  
Marija Lukic ◽  
Daniel Hawkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals A new inertial navigation system for guiding implant placement. An in-vitro proof-of-concept study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0255481
Author(s):  
G. Esteve-Pardo ◽  
L. Esteve-Colomina ◽  
E. Fernández
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Inertial Navigation System ◽  
Computer Navigation ◽  
Inertial Navigation ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Angular Deviation ◽  
Processing Unit ◽  
Implant Placement

The aim of this study was to assess the potential use of a new advanced inertial navigation system for guiding dental implant placement and to compare this approach with standard stereolithographic template guiding. A movement processing unit with a 9-axis absolute orientation sensor was adapted to a surgical handpiece and wired to a computer navigation interface. Sixty implants were placed by 10 operators in 20 jaw models. The 30 implants of the test group were placed in 10 models guided by the new inertial navigation prototype. The 30 implants of the control group were placed in another 10 models using a CAD-CAM template. Both groups were subdivided into experienced and non-experienced operators. Pre- and postoperative computer tomography images were obtained and matched to compare the planned and final implant positions. Four deviation parameters (global, angular, depth, and lateral deviation) were defined and calculated. The primary outcome was the angular deviation between the standard stereolithographic approach and the new inertial navigation system. Results showed no significant differences between both groups, suggesting that surgical navigation based on inertial measurement units (IMUs) could potentially be useful for guiding dental implant placement. However, more studies are still needed to translate this new approach into clinical practice.

Evaluation of a dynamic navigation system for training students in dental implant placement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yalin Zhan ◽  
Miaozhen Wang ◽  
Xueyuan Cheng ◽  
Yi Li ◽  
Xiaorui Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Dynamic Navigation

scholarly journals Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Navigation for Dental Implant Placement: An In Vitro Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 2123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfonso Mediavilla Guzmán ◽  
Elena Riad Deglow ◽  
Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho ◽  
Rubén Agustín-Panadero ◽  
Sofía Hernández Montero
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
T Test ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Planning Software ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Dynamic Navigation ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Aim: To analyze the accuracy capability of two computer-aided navigation procedures for dental implant placement. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 dental implants were selected, which were randomly distributed into two study groups, namely, group A, consisting of those implants that were placed using a computer-aided static navigation system (n = 20) (guided implant (GI)) and group B, consisting of those implants that were placed using a computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 20) (navigation implant (NI)). The placement of the implants from group A was performed using surgical templates that were designed using 3D implant-planning software based on preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a 3D extraoral surface scan, and the placement of group B implants was planned and performed using the dynamic navigation system. After placing the dental implants, a second CBCT was performed and the degree of accuracy of the planning and placement of the implants was analyzed using therapeutic planning software and Student’s t-test. Results: The paired t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between GI and NI at the coronal (p = 0.6535) and apical (p = 0.9081) levels; however, statistically significant differences were observed between the angular deviations of GI and NI (p = 0.0272). Conclusion: Both computer-aided static and dynamic navigation procedures allow accurate implant placement.

scholarly journals Comparing Accuracy of Implant Installation with a Navigation System (NS), a Laboratory Guide (LG), NS with LG, and Freehand Drilling

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 2107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Mao Sun ◽  
Huey-Er Lee ◽  
Ting-Hsun Lan
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Surgical Guide ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Cone Beam Computerized Tomography ◽  
The One ◽  
Dental Implant Surgery ◽  
Missing Tooth

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement by using the conventional freehand method, the surgical guide alone, the dental navigation system alone, and the dental navigation system with a surgical guide. The participants were aged 20 years or older and were requiring dental implant surgery according to an assessment made by a dentist between July 2014 and December 2017. A total of 128 dental implants were inserted, 32 dental implants in each group, and participants with similar or identical age (i.e., 20–50 years or 50 years or above) and missing tooth locations were paired for comparison. Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Using the dental navigation system with a surgical guide could help dentists to position implants more accurately. Total, longitudinal, and angular error deviation were significantly different (p < 0.0001). The same level of accuracy could be obtained for the different jaws and tooth positions. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the total, longitudinal, and angular errors differed significantly (p < 0.0001). A comparison of the four dental implant surgical methods indicated that the combination of a dental implant navigation system and a surgical guide kit achieved the highest accuracy in terms of the different tooth positions and jaws.

Is perioperative antibiotic necessary in straightforward implant placement procedures?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elçin Bedeloğlu ◽  
Mustafa Yalçın ◽  
Cenker Zeki Koyuncuoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Amoxicillin Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Experimental Group

The purpose of this non-random retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of prophylactic antibiotic on early outcomes including postoperative pain, swelling, bleeding and cyanosis in patients undergoing dental implant placement before prosthetic loading. Seventy-five patients (45 males, 30 females) whose dental implant placement were completed, included to the study. Patients used prophylactic antibiotics were defined as the experimental group and those who did not, were defined as the control group. The experimental group received 2 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid 1 h preoperatively and 1 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid twice a day for 5 days postoperatively while the control group had received no prophylactic antibiotic therapy perioperatively. Data on pain, swelling, bleeding, cyanosis, flap dehiscence, suppuration and implant failure were analyzed on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12. No statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups with regard to pain and swelling on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12 ( p &gt;0.05), while the severity of pain and swelling were greater on day 2 compared to day 7 and 14 and week 12 in both groups ( p =0.001 and p &lt;0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to postoperative bleeding and cyanosis. Although flap dehiscence was more severe on day 7 in the experimental group, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the percentage of flap dehiscence assessed at other time points. Within limitations of the study, it has been demonstrated that antibiotic use has no effect on implant failure rates in dental implant surgery with a limited number of implants. We conclude that perioperative antibiotic use may not be required in straightforward implant placement procedures. Further randomized control clinical studies with higher numbers of patients and implants are needed to substantiate our findings.

Dental Implant Placement in Patients with a History of Medications Related to Osteonecrosis of the Jaws: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judd Sher ◽  
Kate Kirkham-Ali ◽  
Denny Luo ◽  
Catherine Miller ◽  
Dileep Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bisphosphonate Treatment ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
History Of

The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and one study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of ‘implant surgery-triggered’ MRONJ. In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained prior to implant placement. The James Cook University College of Medicine and Dentistry Honours program and the Australian Dental Research Foundation Colin Cormie Grant were the primary sources of funding for this systematic review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document