TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of three different validation procedures regarding the accuracy of template-guided implant placement
T2 - An in vitro study
AU - Vasak, Christoph
AU - Strbac, Georg D.
AU - Huber, Christian D.
AU - Lettner, Stefan
AU - Gahleitner, André
AU - Zechner, Werner
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2015/2/1
Y1 - 2015/2/1
N2 - Purpose: The study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the NobelGuide™ (Medicim/Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) concept maximally reducing the influence of clinical and surgical parameters. Moreover, the study was to compare and validate two validation procedures versus a reference method. Material and Methods: Overall, 60 implants were placed in 10 artificial edentulous mandibles according to the NobelGuide™ protocol. For merging the pre- and postoperative DICOM data sets, three different fusion methods (Triple Scan Technique, NobelGuide™ Validation software, and AMIRA® software [VSG - Visualization Sciences Group, Burlington, MA, USA] as reference) were applied. Discrepancies between the virtual and the actual implant positions were measured. Results: The mean deviations measured with AMIRA® were 0.49mm (implant shoulder), 0.69mm (implant apex), and 1.98°mm (implant axis). The Triple Scan Technique as well as the NobelGuide™ Validation software revealed similar deviations compared with the reference method. A significant correlation between angular and apical deviations was seen (r=0.53; p<.001). A greater implant diameter was associated with greater deviations (p=03). Conclusion: The Triple Scan Technique as a system-independent validation procedure as well as the NobelGuide™ Validation software are in accordance with the AMIRA® software. The NobelGuide™ system showed similar or less spatial and angular deviations compared with others.
AB - Purpose: The study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the NobelGuide™ (Medicim/Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) concept maximally reducing the influence of clinical and surgical parameters. Moreover, the study was to compare and validate two validation procedures versus a reference method. Material and Methods: Overall, 60 implants were placed in 10 artificial edentulous mandibles according to the NobelGuide™ protocol. For merging the pre- and postoperative DICOM data sets, three different fusion methods (Triple Scan Technique, NobelGuide™ Validation software, and AMIRA® software [VSG - Visualization Sciences Group, Burlington, MA, USA] as reference) were applied. Discrepancies between the virtual and the actual implant positions were measured. Results: The mean deviations measured with AMIRA® were 0.49mm (implant shoulder), 0.69mm (implant apex), and 1.98°mm (implant axis). The Triple Scan Technique as well as the NobelGuide™ Validation software revealed similar deviations compared with the reference method. A significant correlation between angular and apical deviations was seen (r=0.53; p<.001). A greater implant diameter was associated with greater deviations (p=03). Conclusion: The Triple Scan Technique as a system-independent validation procedure as well as the NobelGuide™ Validation software are in accordance with the AMIRA® software. The NobelGuide™ system showed similar or less spatial and angular deviations compared with others.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028262235&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028262235&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/cid.12085
DO - 10.1111/cid.12085
M3 - Article
C2 - 23679124
AN - SCOPUS:85028262235
SN - 1523-0899
VL - 17
SP - 142
EP - 149
JO - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
JF - Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
IS - 1
ER -