Abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of placed implants using three different CAIS systems in totally edentulous patients
Materials and Methods: Totally edentulous patients requiring implants for full-mouth restoration were eligible for this study. All implants (n=60) were classified into three groups of CAIS systems equally. In mental and static CAIS groups, coDiagnostiXTM software (Dental Wings Inc, Canada) was selected for implant planning. All virtual images were used to facilitate the surgeon placing implant by conventional manner in mental CAIS group, and fabricate the surgical template for guided implant surgery in static CAIS group. On the other hand, the Iris–100 software (EPED Inc., Taiwan) was chosen for virtually planning of implant position, and navigating the implant bed preparation and insertion intraoperatively in dynamic CAIS group. Post-operative DICOM files were imported to each planning software in order to evaluate the angular deviations, 3D deviations at implant platform and apex between placed and planned implant positions. Statistical data analysis was tested by One-way ANOVA.
Results: Groups of 20 Implants were installed following three different CAIS protocols. The mean angular deviations among mental, static and dynamic CAIS groups were 10.09°±4.64°, 4.98°±2.16° and 5.75°±2.09° respectively. The mean 3D deviations at implant platform among mental, static and dynamic CAIS groups 3.48±2.00 mm, 1.40±0.72 mm and 1.73±0.43 mm respectively. While, the mean 3D deviations at implant apex were 3.6±2.11 mm, 1.66±0.61 mm and 1.86±0.82 mm. The static and dynamic CAIS groups showed no statistically significant difference in term of implant accuracy and both groups also demonstrated statistically significant superior accuracy in all variables compared to the mental CAIS group in totally edentulous patient.
Conclusion: In this clinical trial, the mental CAIS group reported the least accuracy and there was no difference between static and dynamic CAIS groups in the totally edentulous.
