Home > Riviste > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 August;71(4) > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 August;71(4):223-32

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Opzioni di pubblicazione
eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 August;71(4):223-32

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04469-1

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Comparison between CBCT superimposition protocol and S.T.A.P. method to evaluate the accuracy in implant insertion in guided surgery

Fabrizio CARINI 1, Giulia COPPOLA 2 , Vito SAGGESE 3

1 Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; 2 University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; 3 Private Practitioner, Pisa, Italy



BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using static guided surgery. Two methods of measuring accuracy were compared, the superimposition of CBCT and the non-radiological Superimposition Touch Absolute Precision (S.T.A.P.) method.
METHODS: In this prospective clinical study 23 implants were placed with static surgical template using a flapless technique and postextractive procedure. Six months after surgery, a postoperative CBCT was performed to assess the position of the implants and at the same time dental impressions were taken for the final prosthesis. The plaster models made at this stage have made it possible to obtain the position of the implants inserted using the probe technology. Preoperative and postoperative data were superimposed, deviations in the three dimensions of the space were calculated. The differences between the two measurement methods were assessed.
RESULTS: The study showed no statistically significant differences between the two methods of measuring accuracy at the implant platform level, apex, or angles. The average real deviation detected at the implant platform level is 1.16±0.58 mm with CBCT, 1.22±0.55 mm with the S.T.A.P. method; at the apex level is 1.48±0.98 mm with CBCT, 1.47±0.72 mm with the S.T.A.P. method. The average difference between CBCT and S.T.A.P. method for real deviation is 0.06±0.75 mm at the platform level and 0.007±1.24 mm at the apex level.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that measuring accuracy by S.T.A.P. method was comparable to that obtained by CBCT superimposition.


KEY WORDS: Dentistry; Surgery, computer-assisted; Dental implants; Planning techiniques

inizio pagina