-
Atlas Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am 20 (2012) 53–79
Computer-Guided Planning and Placementof Dental Implants
Gary Orentlicher, DMDa,*,Douglas Goldsmith, DDSa, Marcus Abboud,
DMDb
aPrivate Practice, New York Oral, Maxillofacial, and Implant
Surgery, 495 Central Park Avenue, Suite 201, Scarsdale, NY,
USAbDepartment of Prosthodontics and Digital Technology, School of
Dental Medicine, State University of New York
at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
The goal of dental implant therapy is the accurate and
predictable restoration of a patient’sdentition. These goals are
best achieved when all members of the surgical and restorative team
areworking together on diagnosis, planning, and reconstruction. The
recent introduction of new 3-dimensional (3D) diagnostic and
treatment planning technologies in implant dentistry have created
anenvironment for the team approach to the planning and placement
of dental implants, according toa restoratively driven treatment
plan. The team can now start with the end result, the planned
tooth,and then place an implant into the correct position according
to the restorative plan. The accurate andpredictable placement of
implants according to a computer-generated virtual treatment plan
is nowa reality, transferring the virtual plan from the computer to
operative treatment. Third-partyproprietary implant software and
associated surgical instrumentation, in combination with 3Dimaging
technologies, has revolutionized dental implant diagnosis and
treatment. This developmenthas created an interdisciplinary
environment in which communication between the team membersleads to
better patient care and outcomes.
Historical overview
Standard dental diagnosis involves evaluating and diagnosing
patients using 2-dimensionalradiographic images (ie, periapical,
bitewing, panoramic, and cephalometric radiographs).
Clinicianacceptance of the limitations of these technologies was
required in the evaluation of actual 3Dproblems, because few
options were available. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons, because of
theirhospital training, have long used computed tomography (CT)
scans for the 3D evaluation of facialtrauma and pathologic lesions.
These CT evaluations were commonly viewed in 2 dimensions as
axialor reformatted frontal or coronal slices through the area of
interest of a patient’s anatomy, viewed assheets of printed films
or on a computer screen. The remainder of the dental community had
little ifany exposure to 3D image evaluation.
The first medical-grade helical CT scanners were all slower,
single-slice machines, typically basedin hospitals or private
radiology facilities. Today’s medical multislice CT scanners are
capable ofperforming an upper and/or lower jaw scan in a few
seconds. However, radiation exposure, the lack offamiliarity and
training among dentists, the size and cost of the machines, and the
perceived cost-benefit ratio in patient care made them
inappropriate for a dental office setting. In 1998, with
thedevelopment and introduction of the New Tom 9000 (Quantitative
Radiology, Verona, Italy), cone-beam volumetric tomography
(CBVT/CBCT) was introduced to the dental community [1]. Althoughthe
early machines were large, the advantages were that they produced
good 3D images at lower
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected]
1061-3315/12/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.cxom.2011.12.004
oralmaxsurgeryatlas.theclinics.com
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cxom.2011.12.004http://www.oralmaxsurgeryatlas.theclinics.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cxom.2011.12.004
-
54 ORENTLICHER et al
radiation doses [2–4]. The newer machines of today have a much
smaller footprint and are smallenough to fit into a dental office.
The disadvantages were that although the radiation was less
thanmedical-grade CT, it was larger than conventional dental
radiographs and because of the reducedradiation, the images
produced had somewhat less definition than medical CT.
Medical-grade CTremains the gold standard for accurate 3D diagnosis
[5,6]. Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction(ASIR) software
has recently been reported to allow up to a 50% reduction in
radiation dose inmedical CT scans, without diminishing image
quality [7–10]. There are different average deviationsand
percentage error measurements for all CBCT scanners [11,12].
In the late 1980s articles discussing the use of Dentascans to
evaluate the bone of the maxilla andmandible in preparation for
placement of dental implants began to appear in the
professionalliterature [13–16]. Columbia Scientific (CSI)
introduced the 3D Dental software in 1988. This soft-ware converted
CT axial slices into reformatted cross-sectional images of the
alveolar ridges for diag-nosis and evaluation. In 1991, a
combination software named ImageMaster-101 was introduced byCSI,
which added the ability to place graphic dental implants on the
cross-sectional images. The firstversion of Sim/Plant was
introduced by CSI in 1993. This software allowed the placement of
virtualimplants of exact dimensions, on CT images, in
cross-sectional, axial, and panoramic views. In 1999SimPlant 6.0
was introduced, adding the creation of 3D reformatted image
surface-rendering imagesto the software [17]. Soon after
Materialise (Leuven, Belgium) purchased CSI in 2001, the
tech-nology for drilling osteotomies to exact depth and direction
through a surgical guide was introduced.SimPlant was designed as an
open system to perform osteotomies for the placement of
straight-walled implants from all implant manufacturers. It was not
designed for the final placement ofimplants to depth, through a
surgical guide, or for tapered implant systems. NobelBiocare
(Zurich,Switzerland) introduced the NobelProcera/NobelGuide
technology in 2005. This technology wasintroduced as a complete
implant planning and placement system, for both straight-walled
andtapered NobelBiocare implants. Instrumentation was developed to
create osteotomies of accuratedepth and direction, as well as the
ability to place implants flaplessly, to accurate depth, througha
guide. The system was designed for typical postimplant insertion
treatment (cover screws or healingabutments), immediate loading of
implants, and the fabrication of partial-arch or full-arch
restora-tions before implant placement. In 2011, NobelClinician, a
completely redesigned upgrade of theNobelGuide software, was
introduced. Software from other manufacturers, such as
EasyGuide(Keystone Dental, Burlington, MA, USA), Straumann
coDiagnostiX (Straumann, Basel, Switzer-land), VIP Software
(BioHorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA), Implant Master (IDent, Foster
City,CA, USA), and others are now available as well. Other implant
manufacturers have developed instru-ment trays for the guided
placement of their implants using the SimPlant software for implant
plan-ning (ie, Facilitate [AstraTech Dental, Molndal, Sweden],
Navigator [Biomet 3i, Palm BeachGardens, FL, USA], ExpertEase
[Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany]).
General technology concepts
Using CT/CBCT scanners, the visualization of the height and
width of available bone for implantplacement, soft tissue
thicknesses, proximity and root anatomy of adjacent teeth, the
exact location ofthe maxillary sinuses, sinus septae, and other
pertinent vital structures such as the mandibular canal,mental
foramen, and incisive canal are possible [18–20]. Variations and
aberrations of normalanatomy are also easily visualized. Once
images are imported into proprietary software programs(SimPlant,
NobelClinician, and so forth), the clinician can then virtually
plan treatment for the place-ment of implants according to an
individual patient’s anatomy and case plan. The type and size of
theplanned implant, its position within the bone, its relationship
to the planned restoration and adjacentteeth and/or implants, and
its proximity to vital structures can be determined before
performingsurgery on a patient [18–22]. Surgical drilling guides
can then be fabricated from the virtual treatmentplan. These
surgical guides are used by the clinician to place the planned
implants in the same posi-tions as those of the virtual treatment
plan, allowing for more accurate and predictable implant place-ment
[23–27] and reduced patient morbidity [28–31].
All of the current systems have similar restorative and surgical
protocols. Upper and lower archimpressions are made, and a bite
registration is obtained. Poured models are mounted on an
articulator.Guided surgery requires reverse planning. The
prosthodontist or restorative dentist first creates an ideal
-
55COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
restorative treatment plan, determining the planned tooth
position by creating a diagnostic wax-up thatindicates the exact
anatomy and position of the teeth to be replaced. This ideal
diagnostic wax-up is thenincorporated, by a dental laboratory, into
an acrylic prosthesis, referred to as a radiographic guide,
scanprosthesis or scan appliance.Depending on the system to be
used, this scan prosthesis can be a partial or fulldenture (Figs.
1–3.) Most systems, other than NobelClinician, require that the
planned restorations containa 20%to 30%barium sulfatemixture in the
acrylic to allow for radiopacity of the planned restorations in
theCT/CBCT images. NobelClinician uses a double-scan technique with
a hard acrylic scan prosthesis andgutta perchamarkers as reference
points, with no barium sulfate. According to the individual system
proto-cols, the CT/CBCT scan is then taken with the patient wearing
the scan prosthesis. The CT scan DICOM(Digital Imaging and
Communication in Medicine) images are then imported into the
various proprietarysoftware programs (SimPlant, NobelClinician,
EasyGuide, and so forth). The software programs are thenused to
virtually place implants into their ideal position related to the
planned restoration and the underlyingbony anatomy (Figs. 4–6.)The
digital treatment plan is then downloaded to themanufacturer for
fabricationof a surgical guide (Figs. 7–9). The surgical guide is
used,with implant-specific drilling instrumentation, toprecisely
place the implants in the positions, depths, and angulations as
planned virtually.
Many CT-guided implant planning technologies require radiopaque
fiducial reference markers tobe placed in the scan prosthesis that
the patient wears during the CT/CBCT scan. The software usesthese
reference markers to virtually position the scan appliance, and
with it the parameters of theplanned restoration(s), to the
patient’s jaw. The accurate assessment of these geometric markers
canbe difficult for some CBCT scanners and has the potential to add
error into a precise planning system,ultimately leading to
inaccurate fitting of surgical guides and error in implant
placement. It isadvisable to make every effort to investigate which
CBCT scanners have high levels of accuracy or touse medical CT
scanners when using these technologies [32].
Fig. 1. NobelGuide Radiographic Guide, fully edentulous.
Modification of a patient’s well-fitting existing denture.
Fig. 2. SimPlant radiographic barium stent, partially
edentulous.
-
Fig. 4. NobelGuide virtual treatment plan, fully edentulous.
Fig. 3. EZ Guide radiographic appliance, partially
edentulous.
Fig. 5. SimPlant virtual treatment plan, partially
edentulous.
56 ORENTLICHER et al
-
Fig. 7. NobelBiocare NobelGuide fabricated from treatment plan
in Fig. 4.
Fig. 6. EZ Guide virtual treatment plan, partially
edentulous.
Fig. 8. SimPlant SurgiGuide fabricated from treatment plan in
Fig. 5.
57COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
-
Fig. 9. EZ Guide fabricated from treatment plan in Fig. 6.
58 ORENTLICHER et al
Indications for use
Because of its precision and accuracy in implant placement, an
argument could be made for theuse of CT-guided implant surgery in
almost all cases. As with anything in medicine, a cost/time/benefit
determination must be made by the clinician, based on the
circumstances of an individualcase. In certain cases the increased
patient and treatment planning time, the additional expense, andthe
additional radiation exposure to the patient may outweigh the
clinical benefits. The authors havefound that these technologies
are most beneficial to the patient and the dental team in the
followingclinical circumstances.
Three or more implants in a rowProximity to vital anatomic
structuresProblems related to the proximity of adjacent
teethQuestionable bone volumeImplant position that is critical to
the planned restorationFlapless implant placementMultiple unit or
full-arch immediate restorations, with or without extractions and
immediate
placementSignificant alteration of the soft tissue or bony
anatomy by prior surgery or traumaPatients with physical, medical,
and psychiatric comorbidities.
Conventional surgical guides to aid in implant positioning have
been used in implant dentistry formany years. Guides of these types
can be simple (ie, vacuform shells with the buccal or
palatal/lingual facings of the planned restorations) or more
complex (ie, dental laboratory–fabricated guideswith 2-mm drill
holes or metal tubes). The problem in their use is that there is no
correlation in theseappliances between the planned restoration and
the underlying bony anatomy. This anatomicrelationship can be
predictably established and considered before surgery only with the
use of 3Dvisualization and the use of computer-guided implant
surgical guides.
The fabrication of a surgical guide, used in implant treatment,
is determined by the patient’sanatomy and local references, such as
the numbers and locations of teeth in the arch to be treated or
inthe opposing arch. Fewer anatomic references are present for the
predictable accurate placement ofimplants as the length of the
edentulous area increases. In a fully edentulous case, all local
referencesare lost other than the soft tissue ridge and palate.
Bone and soft tissue loss from periodontal diseaseand atrophy,
long-term denture wear, and sinus pneumatization can make it
difficult to predictablyuse a traditional surgical guide.
In cases for which 3 or more implants in a row are planned,
concepts of implant spacing andangulations, implant parallelism in
all dimensions, proximity of implants to anatomic structures,
andrelationships between implant positions and the planned
restorations are all significant considerationsfor the clinician.
CT/CBCT-guided surgery allows for the ideal placement of multiple
dental implantsaccording to the planned restoration(s), the
relationships of implants to surrounding anatomy, andprinciples of
ideal prosthodontic implant positioning and spacing (Figs.
10–13).
-
Fig. 10. Lower right mandible, 3 implants in a row, virtual
treatment plan.
Fig. 11. Three implants in a row, NobelGuide in place. Note
Implant Mounts with attached implants placed to depth.
Fig. 12. Final posteroanterior radiograph. Note implant
parallelism, different diameters and lengths, and spacing
correspondingto the implant site and the planned restorations.
Fig. 13. Final individual restorations, 3 implants in a row.
59COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
-
60 ORENTLICHER et al
Differences in x-ray machines and radiographic techniques
commonly lead to distortion ofanatomic structures on conventional
2-dimensional images, such as elongation, shortening,stretching,
and contraction. Accurate 3D evaluations and measurements of the
relationship betweena planned implant and the position of the
mental nerve, inferior alveolar nerve (Figs. 14 and
15),nasopalatine/incisive nerve (Fig. 16), maxillary sinuses, and
nasal floor (Fig. 17) are best visual-ized, evaluated, and measured
using CT-generated images. In cases for which there are questionsof
nerve or sinus proximity related to the patient’s available bone,
implants are most accuratelyplaced using computer-generated
surgical guides. These technologies minimize potential
patientmorbidities.
All proprietary implant planning software has the functionality
to isolate the roots of teeth adjacentto the edentulous areas to
aid in the accurate placement of implants between and adjacent to
toothroots in the planned sites. Some software will use virtual
dots or lines to outline tooth roots (Fig. 18),whereas others have
the ability to alter the software’s sensitivity to Hounsfield units
or isovalues tovirtually remove bone from around tooth roots (known
as segmentation) (Fig. 19). These technologiesare most beneficial
when implants must be placed in tight spaces because of close root
proximities, orwhen tooth roots are in extremely divergent or
convergent relationships.
Surgical dilemmas that require implant placement in only one
possible location or implant depthare common. Clinical scenarios
frequently require the placement of implants into tight spaces
withminimal bony leeway either mesial-distally, buccal-lingually,
or both (see Fig. 16; Fig. 20). Toothroot proximities can require
“threading the needle” with implant placement, a common problemwith
congenitally missing teeth. Scenarios of limited bone volume often
leave situations in whichthe patient’s anatomy dictates where the
implant can be placed.
Some of the most complex restorative and surgical cases treated
in implant dentistry involve singleand multiple implants in the
esthetic zone. Thicknesses of crestal and buccal soft tissues and
buccaland palatal cortical plates, buccal-lingual ridge dimensions,
proximity to adjacent teeth, implant-to-root relationships,
gingival and papilla support and contours, gingival exposure, smile
lines, andimplant angulations and emergence are just a few of the
many complex considerations. Knowledge ofthe appropriate implant
position based on the type of restoration planned (ie, cement or
screwretained) is an important prosthetic-based consideration.
Small variations in implant positions canlead to difficult
restorative dilemmas in these cases. Proper implant position can be
critical to theesthetic and functional success of the planned
restoration. CT/CBCT-guided implant planning andplacement allows
for the evaluation and visualization of the ideal restoration for a
site based on thesurrounding bony and soft tissue anatomy. The
virtual placement of implants based on the planned
Fig. 14. Severe atrophy of posterior mandible, implant placement
planned lingual to the inferior alveolar nerve.
-
Fig. 15. Three-dimensional reformation of Fig. 14. Note
appearance of proximity between implant and inferior alveolar
nervein lateral view.
Fig. 16. Implant placement planned in close proximity to
enlarged nasopalatine canal.
Fig. 17. Severe maxillary atrophy. Implant planned in the
anterior nasal spine, in close proximity to the nasal floor.
61COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
-
Fig. 18. Outlining of tooth roots with virtual treatment
planning.
62 ORENTLICHER et al
restoration related to the underlying bone is then performed.
Surgical guides are then used to positionthe implants accurately
and predictably into the optimal position for the planned
restoration (Figs.21–24).
The time required from implant placement to loading has been
dramatically reduced by implanttechnologies and surface
characteristics in use today. Immediate placement and immediate
loading ofimplants are now commonly performed. In some cases teeth
can be extracted, implants can be placedimmediately, and temporary
crowns can be placed at the time of implant insertion. Concepts of
cross-arch stabilization and loading of multiple implants have
changed the way cases are planned fortreatment. Depending on the
clinical circumstances and the experience and comfort level of
theclinician, these technologies can be used to place single units,
multiple units, or full arches ofimplants, with a tissue incision
or flaplessly. Implants can be placed as a 2-stage, a single-stage
withhealing abutments, or as an immediate-placement/immediate-load
case. Patients experience lesssurgical trauma, pain, and swelling
while their recovery time is reduced and the ability to return
totheir normal lives is expedited [22–29].
Taking CT-guided technology to the next step involves the
accurate fabrication of a restorationbefore implant insertion, with
its immediate insertion at the time of surgery. After the virtual
treatmentplan is created by the clinician (Figs. 26 and 36),
computer-generated stereolithographic surgicalguides are fabricated
by the manufacturer from the virtual treatment plan (Figs. 27 and
37). Using
Fig. 19. Segmentation of images with virtual treatment
planning.
-
Fig. 20. Implant virtually placed in location with limited
buccal-palatal width.
63COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
the fabricated surgical guide along with patient models, a
dental laboratory then fabricates temporary,and in some cases
final, restorations, before implant placement surgery (see Figs.
27, 28, 41, 42). Thesurgical guide can then be used to place
implants flaplessly, only removing a core of tissue in theplanned
implant sites. Once the surgical guide is accurately secured in the
patient’s mouth it rarelyis removed until all implants are inserted
to the proper depth and direction (Figs. 29 and 38). Abut-ments can
then be immediately placed on the implants, and temporary, or in
some cases final, resto-rations can be inserted (see Figs. 25–31
and 32–49).
In most circumstances, “placing the implants where the bone is”
has become a concept from thepast. Large and small soft tissue and
connective tissue grafts, as well as sinus-lift grafts,
block-bonegrafts, ridge splitting, and alveolar distraction
procedures are a few of the procedures routinelyperformed to
prepare the recipient jaw sites before placing implants. Previous
surgical procedures,including the prior placement of different
types of dental implants (ie, blade and subperiostealimplants) can
leave patients with challenging reconstructive bony defects (Figs.
50–54). Traumaticinjuries or benign or malignant pathology can
result in the loss of bone, teeth, and soft tissue,with resultant
defects of varying sizes. Reconstructive procedures to treat these
defects can leaveareas of abnormal bony anatomy and scarred soft
tissue. Bone and soft tissue volumes can be
Fig. 21. A 17-year-old female patient with overretained,
maxillary right primary canine and lateral incisors, and
congenitallymissing right canine and bilateral lateral incisors and
second premolars. Preoperative grafting procedures were necessary
to
prepare each site for dental implants. Preoperative photo.
-
Fig. 23. Virtual treatment plan, occlusal view, for the patient
described in Fig. 21. Note implant planned in the right canine
sitefor 2-unit cantilever bridge anteriorly.
Fig. 24. Final restorations for the patient described in Fig.
21.
Fig. 22. Virtual treatment plan for the patient described in
Fig. 21.
64 ORENTLICHER et al
-
Fig. 25. A 20-year-old man with bilateral maxillary central
incisors avulsed traumatically. Treatment was done using Astra-Tech
Dental Facilitate technology. 20 year old male, preoperative
photo.
Fig. 26. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 25.
Facilitate “virtual” treatment plan.
Fig. 27. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 25.
Presurgical laboratory placement of implant analogs into the
Facilitatesurgical guide, before pouring stone into the guide for
fabrication of a master model.
Fig. 28. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 25.
Presurgical fabrication of provisional restorations on the poured
mastermodel.
65COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
-
Fig. 29. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 25. Guided
osteotomy preparation using the Facilitate instrumentation.
Fig. 30. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 25. Implants
inserted, temporary restoration placed at the time of surgery.
Fig. 31. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 25. Final
restorations in place, 5 months later.
Fig. 32. 68 year old male, partially edentulous mandible. Case
treatment planned for immediate extraction, immediate
implantplacement, and immediate loading with a provisional
restoration. Preoperative panoramic radiograph.
66 ORENTLICHER et al
-
Fig. 33. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Preoperative clinical photo, mandibular ridge.
Fig. 34. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Multiple
piece Radiographic Guide.
Fig. 35. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Mandibular Radiographic Guide and Radiographic Index in place at
timeof CT scan.
67COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
-
Fig. 36. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Virtual
treatment plan, immediate extraction, 8 implant
placementplanned.
Fig. 37. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
NobelGuide planned from virtual treatment plan in Fig. 36.
Fig. 38. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Osteotomy drilling through the NobelGuide, using NobelGuide
forNobelActive surgical instrumentation.
-
Fig. 39. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Clinical
photo, minimally traumatic extractions with implants in place.
Fig. 40. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Postoperative panoramic radiograph.
Fig. 41. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Master
cast fabricated from NobelGuide, Quick Temp abutments withnylon
pick up sleeves in place.
Fig. 42. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Fabrication of provisional restoration on master cast.
69COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
-
Fig. 43. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Provisional restoration, pick up of nylon Quick Temp sleeves.
Siximplants incorporated in provisional restoration.
Fig. 44. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Provsional restoration in place, occlusal view.
Fig. 45. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Master
cast, planned occlusion with provisional restoration, frontal
view.
Fig. 46. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32.
Provisional restoration in place at time of surgery, frontal
view.
70 ORENTLICHER et al
-
Fig. 48. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Final
restoration, right side.
Fig. 47. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Final
restoration, frontal view.
Fig. 50. Preoperative panoramic radiograph of a 45-year-old
woman who had a blade implant placed in the left mandible in2003,
resulting in multiple infections and implant and bridge loosening.
After implant removal, osseointegrated implants were
planned for mandibular right and left sides.
Fig. 49. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 32. Final
restoration, left side.
71COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
-
Fig. 52. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 50. Virtual
treatment plan, 3 implants in the left mandible.
Fig. 51. Treatment of the patient described in Fig. 50. Defect
of the left mandible after removal of blade implant and
restoration
Fig. 53. A 68-year-old woman with prior full-arch maxillary
subperiosteal implant. Note severe atrophy and distorted
anatomy
72 ORENTLICHER et al
.
.
-
Fig. 54. Virtual treatment plan for the patient described in
Fig. 53. Four implants were planned for overdenture
restoration.
73COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
unpredictable after healing, graft maturation, and settling of
graft materials. Lateral block-onlaygrafts can resorb a portion of
their bone volume during healing and maturation [33–35].
CT/CBCT-guided technologies allow the surgeon to predict the volume
of sinus-lift graft material neces-sary to augment an area of the
maxilla to a desired height of bone [36]. Newer technologies are
beinginvestigated and developed in which customized block-bone
grafts can be created after evaluatingbony defects from CT/CBCT
data.
Using these technologies allows for the visualization and
evaluation of a patient’s distortedanatomy without making an
incision or removing any soft tissue or bone [37]. Implants can be
placedaccurately and predictably with knowledge of the patient’s
underlying distorted bony anatomy,without making an incision and
removing the periosteal blood supply from the areas (Figs.
55–58).
Compromised patients
Preoperative and postoperative radiation therapy potentially
alters healing capacity in head andneck cancer patients. To
increase bone vascularity before implant placement, the literature
advocates
Fig. 55. A 32-year-old man with severe atrophy of anterior
maxilla resulting from a sports injury. Preoperative
cross-sectionalimage in area of the right lateral incisor
(SimPlant). Note measurements revealing deficiencies of bone in all
dimensions.
-
Fig. 56. Postgrafting cross-sectional image of the patient
described in Fig. 55. Area of right lateral incisor after maxillary
ante-rior distraction osteogenesis and lateral block grafts
(NobelGuide). Note measurements of 13.0 mm (height) and 9.6 mm
(width).
74 ORENTLICHER et al
preoperative and postoperative courses of hyperbaric oxygen
therapy in these patients [38–41]. Mini-mizing flap elevation and
hard and soft tissue trauma is indicated in these patients to
minimize thelikelihood of the development of osteoradionecrosis of
the jaws [38,42]. Bleeding, swelling, andalteration of the blood
supply to the bone and soft tissue are limited by using CT Guided
implantplacement technologies [43].
Fig. 57. Cross-sectional view after sinus-lift graft. Note bone
graft placement primarily laterally, virtual implant placed
inimage.
-
Fig. 58. Three-dimensional reconstruction of left mandible,
after Ameloblastoma resection and iliac crest
reconstruction.Virtual treatment plan, 4 implants.
75COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
Patients with medical problems such as bleeding dyscrasias,
anticoagulation issues, or significantcardiovascular disease may
necessitate specific medication protocols that cannot be
alteredpresurgically. Minimizing bleeding by limiting surgical
trauma to the soft and hard tissues isindicated in patients with
difficult medical management issues. 3D implant evaluation and
planningwith CT-guided implant placement allows for flapless,
minimally traumatic, accurate implantplacement, an indication for
use in patients with these challenging medical management
problems.
Procedures that require long periods in a dental chair can
prevent some patients from seekingtreatment because of extreme
levels of anxiety, stress, and phobias. The amount of time a
patient cansit in a dental chair can be limited by orthopedic and
spinal disorders. Wheelchair-bound patientspose another set of
logistical treatment problems. These types of patients can require
extensiveplanning and preparation before treatment. Without
compromising quality, treatment must beperformed quickly and
efficiently. Computer-generated implant planning allows for the
preoperativevisualization of most of the potential planning and
anatomic issues that may be encountered duringsurgery, all before
the patient sits in the dental chair. By using surgical guides to
place the implants,implants can be placed quickly and predictably,
thus minimizing the patient’s stress, pain, and time inthe dental
chair.
Discussion
Three types of computer-generated surgical guides are currently
available: tooth supported,mucosa supported, and bone supported.
Tooth-supported guides are used in partially edentulouscases. The
surgical guide is designed to rest on other teeth in the arch for
accuracy of guide fit.Mucosal-supported guides are designed to rest
on the mucosa and are primarily used in fullyedentulous cases.
Accurate interarch bite registrations are of utmost importance when
using theseguides to assure accurate surgical guide positioning and
placement of securing screws or pins beforethe placement of
implants (see Figs. 37 and 38). Bone-supported guides can be used
in partially orfully edentulous cases, but are used primarily in
fully edentulous cases when significant ridge atrophyis present and
good seating of a mucosa-supported guide will be questionable. An
extensive full-thickness flap is necessary when using
bone-supported guides to expose the bone in the plannedimplant
sites and in the adjacent areas for full stable seating of the
guide over the bony ridge. Atthis time, only SimPlant (Materialise)
manufactures bone-supported surgical guides.
Dental implant placement using CT-guided surgery with drill
guides is known to enhance safetycompared with the freehand
technique [44,45] while being compatible with conventional flap
eleva-tion surgery or flapless procedures [46] According to the
NobelGuide protocol, when using theGuided Abutment to secure the
immediate restoration, the accuracy should be sufficient for
insertinga prefabricated final restoration at the time of implant
surgery. No available CT-guided drill guidetechnology exists today
that has absolute precision. All articles on stereolithographic
guides showerror in all dimensions between virtual planning and
actually obtained implant positions [47].According to the
literature, implants placed by mucosa-supported guides have the
lowest mean devi-ations whereas implants placed by bone-supported
guides have higher deviations [48]. Tooth-supported guides have
been found to have the lowest measured deviation, likely because
there are
-
76 ORENTLICHER et al
teeth present in the arch acting as accurate stops for guide
placement [49]. A single guide, using metalguide sleeves and rigid
screw or pin fixation with specific drilling instrumentation,
further minimizeserror. Most systems use these fixation techniques
to stabilize mucosal-supported guides; some usethem to stabilize
all guides.
A reduction in treatment time is the main advantage of inserting
a final restoration immediatelyafter implant placement. Clinicians
who are using these technologies more commonly placetemporary
restorations after implant placement for many reasons. An accurate
prediction of thecontours and anatomy of the healed gingiva is
impossible, whether a procedure is flapless or not. Thisissue is a
significant one for a laboratory technician fabricating a final
restoration. The patient’saesthetic demands can sometimes be great.
Observation of the tissue response to the temporaryrestoration can
give the restorative dentist invaluable information regarding the
gingival contours andaesthetics in preparation for the final
restoration. In addition, a small number of implant failuresoccur,
regardless of whether an implant is placed guided or nonguided.
Most surgery-related implantfailures typically occur within the
first 3 to 4 months after placement. Management of an
implantfailure, both surgically and restoratively, is best done
before insertion of the final restoration.According to Abrahamsson
and colleagues [50], changing from a healing abutment to a
permanentabutment did not result in a change in the dimension and
quality of the transmucosal attachmentthat developed, and did not
differ from the mucosal barrier that formed to a permanent
abutmentplaced after surgery. In addition, an acrylic occlusal
surface or a composite restoration has been foundto have better
shock-absorbing behavior and to reduce the forces of impact when
compared withceramic materials [51]. These factors are all
additional reasons to place immediate acrylic temporaryrestorations
rather than immediate final porcelain restorations.
SimPlant (Materialise) and NobelGuide/NobelClinician
(NobelBiocare) are the 2 major systemscurrently in use. Clinically
the NobelGuide system is a more comprehensive one, with full sets
ofspecific instrumentation for the fully guided placement of all
NobelBiocare implants to accurateposition, depth, and angulation,
and the components to immediately load implants if
desired.NobelGuide and 3i Navigator are the only systems currently
available with instrumentation for theplacement of tapered
implants. The NobelGuide technology and instrumentation can be used
forperforming osteotomies for a straight-walled implant from any
implantmanufacturer. In these cases, thesystem can only be used for
depth and direction of osteotomies. Because the NobelGuide
ImplantMounts are designed only for NobelBiocare implants, implants
from other manufacturers cannot beaccurately placed and fully
guided. In these cases, the depth of implant placement should be
evaluatedwith the guide off, usually after an incision and
tissue-flap elevation. SimPlant is designed as an opensystem for
all implant systems. Although this feature increases its
functionality, it is also a limitationbecause it is not perfectly
adapted to one implant system in a comprehensive manner. Some
cliniciansbelieve that the SimPlant software currently is more
intuitive and easier to learn. Several implantmanufacturers have
recently developed and marketed instrumentation specific for the
placement oftheir straight-walled implants, flapless and fully
guided, using the SimPlant software for planning (eg,Facilitate
[AstraTech Dental], ExpertEase [Dentsply Friadent], Navigator
[3i/Biomet]). Othermanufacturers have developed
nonstereolithographic model technologies for the fabrication of
surgicalguides as well (eg, IDent [Foster City, CA, USA], EZ Guide
[Keystone Dental, Burlington, MA, USA],Straumann coDiagnostiX
[Straumann, Basel, Switzerland]). In these technologies, the
surgical guide iscreated by scanning the patient while he or she is
wearing a barium radiographic appliance, the implantposition(s) are
then planned virtually, and then the surgical guide is created by
milling the radiographicappliance according to the digital CT-based
treatment plan. Guide sleeves are then added to the guide
toaccomodate the instrumentation for osteotomies and guided implant
placement.
Maximizing patient comfort by minimizing traumatic injury to the
tissues is the rationale for usingminimally invasive procedures.
Flapless insertion of dental implants has been found to have
successrates comparablewith conventional implant placement, while
minimizing potential complications fromsoft tissue elevation such
as infection, dehiscence, and soft and hard tissue necrosis
[30,52,53]. Surgicalguidance for drill depth and angulation, in
combination with a flapless technique, minimizes the poten-tial
injury to underlying anatomic structures during the implant
osteotomy preparation. Fully flaplesssurgery is not advised in most
SimPlant cases because fully guided instrumentation for implant
inser-tion is not available. Depth and angulation guidance of all
osteotomies is possible, but accurate implantplatform placement
will require direct visualization of the bone, necessitating an
incision and elevationof a flap. If using Navigator, ExpertEase,
Facilitate, or SimPlant-fabricated NobelGuide compatible
-
77COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
surgical guides, fully guided and flapless placement of implants
is possible because of availableinstrumentation.
CT-based technologies available today have limitations and
questions that require furtherinvestigation regarding their effect
on guided surgery outcomes. The resolution and accuracy ofspecific
CBCT machines compared with the gold standard of medical-grade CT
scanners has beenquestioned [54]. A calibration object is marketed
by NobelBiocare, which calibrates an individualCBCT/CTmachine to an
acrylic object of a known contour and density specifically for the
NobelGuideprotocol. This object adds to the precision of the
stereolithographic fabrication of the NobelGuide [55].
The manufacture of a stereolithographic surgical guide or model
involves reproducing the digitallyplanned dimensions of the
surgical guide or model by using a laser beam to selectively
solidify anultraviolet-sensitive liquid resin. Stereolithographic
materials have inherent potential problems thatcan lead to light
sensitivity and expansion and/or shrinkage of the material. Leaving
them exposed tolight for extended periods of time, as well as
sterilization in high-temperature autoclaves, will
distortstereolithographic materials. The literature concludes that
preparation of the implant site usingsurgical drill guides
generates more heat than classic implant-site preparation,
regardless of theirrigation system used [56].
Summary
New technologies based on the 3D evaluation of patients for
dental implants have opened newavenues to clinicians for accurate
and predictable diagnosis, planning, and treatment in a
multidis-ciplinary patient-based approach. Communication between
clinicians and understanding thesetechnologies are key components
of improved case results and clinical outcomes.
Analyzing,understanding, and possibly adopting future technologies
will not only benefit and open new doorsfor the dental team but
will benefit patients, with more improved predictable outcomes.
The use of CT-guided implant planning and placement does not
separate the surgical andrestorative team from diligent adherence
to the basic principles of oral and implant surgery andprosthetic
implant dentistry. Well-established concepts of implant spacing,
depth and angulation, caseplanning and engineering, minimally
traumatic manipulation of soft and hard tissues, soft tissue
andbone grafting, osseointegration times, soft and hard tissue
healing, heat generation, dental materials,ideal occlusion, and
many others must be maintained and adhered to. CT-guided implant
surgeryfacilitates the placement of dental implants into an ideal
position according to a restoratively driventreatment plan.
Essentially, the final tooth position is determined first. The
implant position is thenplanned and placed into that ideal position
related to the restoration, with accuracy and precision.Treatment
plans should be created according to the requirements of an
individual case and thecomfort level of the surgical and
restorative team. Cases can be treated with implants buried
withcover screws and staged, with healing abutments, or immediately
loaded with temporary, or in somecircumstances, final restorations.
Proper case selection and patient awareness, education,
andcompliance are all critical factors for success.
It must be understood that a steep learning curve is necessary
for the successful integration of CTtechnology and CT-guided
surgery into dental implant practice. Clinicians interested in
thesetechnologies are strongly encouraged to pursue continuing
education on the technologies before theirclinical use. CT-guided
implant surgery is not conventional implant surgery. Knowledge of
CT scans,proprietary treatment planning software, the complete
treatment process protocols, and guided-surgery instrumentation and
techniques are all instrumental to successful treatment outcomes.
Inaddition, clinicians should take into consideration the inherent
additional costs involved in the use ofthe proprietary software and
computer-aided design and manufacturing processing technologies.
Ofprimary importance, good patient selection and diagnosis,
pretreatment planning, knowledge of thetechnology, and adherence to
surgical and prosthetic principles will strongly affect clinical
outcomes.
References
[1] Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, et al. A new volumetric CT
machine for dental imaging based on the cone beam tech-
nique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 1998;8:1558.
-
78 ORENTLICHER et al
[2] Mah J, Hatcher D. Three dimensional craniofacial imaging. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:308.
[3] Hashimoto K, Yoshinori A, Kazui I, et al. A comparison of a
new, limited cone beam computed tomography machine for
dental use with a multi-detector row helical CT machine. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;95:371.
[4] Sukovic P. Cone beam computed tomography in craniofacial
imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6(Suppl 1):31.
[5] Yu L, Vrieze TJ, Bruesewitz MR, et al. Dose and image
quality evaluation of a dedicated cone-beam CT system for high-
contrast neurologic applications. Am J Roentgenol
2010;194:W193.
[6] Yamashina A, Tanimoto K, Sutthiprapaporn P, et al. The
reliability of computed tomography (CT) values and dimensional
measurements of the oropharyngeal region using cone beam CT:
comparison with multidetector CT. Dentomaxillofac Ra-
diol 2008;37:245.
[7] Flicek K, Hara A, Silva A, et al. Reducing the radiation
dose for CT colonography using adaptive statistical iterative
reconstruction: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol
2010;195:126–31.
[8] Silva A, Lawder H, Hara A, et al. Innovations in CT dose
reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical
iterative
reconstruction algorithm. Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:191–9.
[9] Leipsic J, LaBounty T, Heilbron B, et al. Estimated
radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative
reconstruc-
tion in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. Am J
Roentgenol 2010;195:655–60.
[10] Sagara Y, Hara A, Pavlicek W, et al. Abdominal CT:
comparison of low-dose CT with adaptive statistical iterative
recon-
struction and routine-dose CT with filtered back projection in
53 patients. Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:713–9.
[11] Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, et al. A comparative
evaluation of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multi-
slice CT (MSCT). Part II: on 3D model accuracy. Eur J Radiol
2010;75:270–4.
[12] Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, et al. Assessment of bone
segmentation quality of cone beam CT versus multislice spiral
CT: a pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol
Endod 2006;102:225–34.
[13] Rothman SL, Chaftez N, Rhodes ML, et al. CT in the
preoperative assessment of the maxilla and mandible for
endosseous
implant surgery. Radiology 1988;169(2):581.
[14] Casselman JW, Deryckere F, Hermans R, et al. Denta Scan: CT
software program used in the anatomic evaluation of the
mandible and maxilla in the perspective of endosseous implant
surgery. Rofo 1991;155(1):4–10. Available at: http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd¼search&db¼pubmed&term¼MEEUS%20L%5Bau%5D&dispmax¼50.
Ac-cessed December 31, 2011.
[15] Villari N, Fanfani F. Diagnostic contribution of CT in
implantology: use of a new Denta-Scan reconstruction program.
Radiol Med 1992;83(5):608–14.
[16] Tal H, Moses O. A comparison of panoramic radiography with
computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991;20(1):40–2.
[17] Available at:
http://sites.google.com/site/simplantisrael/simplantsources.Webhistory-about
CSI.AccessedDecember 31, 2011.
[18] Ramez J, Donazzan M, Chanavaz M, et al. The contribution of
scanner imagery in implant surgery and sinus overflow
using frontal oblique orthogonal reconstruction. Rev Stomatol
Chir Maxillofac 1992;93:212–4.
[19] Pattijn V, van Cleynenbreugel T, vander Sloten J, et al.
Structural and radiological parameters for the nondestructive
char-
acterization of trabecular bone. Ann Biomed Eng
2001;29:1064–73.
[20] Sonick M, Abrahams J, Faiella R. A comparison of the
accuracy of periapical, panoramic, and computerized tomographic
radiographs in locating the mandibular canal. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 1994;9(4):455–60.
[21] Todd A, Gher M, Quintero G, et al. Interpretation of linear
and computed tomograms in the assessment of implant recip-
ient sites. J Periodontol 1993;64:1243–9.
[22] Gehr ME, Richardson AC. The accuracy of dental radiographic
techniques used for evaluation of implant fixture place-
ment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1995;15:268–83.
[23] vanSteenberghe D, Glauser R, Blombäck U, et al. A computed
tomographic scan derived customized surgical template
and fixed prosthesis for flapless surgery and immediate loading
of implants in fully edentulous maxillae. A prospective
multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(Suppl
1):S111–20.
[24] Tardieu P, Vrielinck L. Implantologie assistée par
ordinateur: le propramme SimPlant/SurgiCase� et le SAFE System�mis
en charge immediate d’un bridge mandibulaire avec des impalt
transmuqueux. Implant 2003;9:15–28.
[25] Rosenfeld AL, Mandelaris GA, Tardieu PB. Prosthetically
directed implant placement using computer software to ensure
precise placement and predictable prosthetic outcomes. Part 3:
stereolithographic drilling guides that do not require bone
exposure and the immediate delivery of teeth. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 2006;26:493.
[26] Vrielinck L, Politis C, Schepers S, et al. Image-based
planning and clinical validation of zygoma and pterygoid
implant
placement in patients with severe bone atrophy using customized
drill guides. Preliminary results from a prospective clin-
ical follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2003;32:7–14.
[27] Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant
placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:571–7.
[28] Hahn J. Single stage, immediate loading, and flapless
surgery. J Oral Implantol 2000;26:193–8.
[29] Campelo LD, Dominguez Camara JR. Flapless implant surgery:
a 10 year clinical retrospective analysis. J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 2002;17:271–6.
[30] Becker W, Goldstein M, Becker BE, et al. Minimally invasive
flapless implant surgery: a prospective multicenter study.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7(Suppl 1):S21–7.
[31] Becker W, Wikesjo UM, Sennerby L, et al. Histologic
evaluation of implants following flapless and flapped surgery:
a study in canines. J Periodontol 2006;77:1717–22.
[32] Abboud M, Wahl G. Clinical benefits, risks, accuracy of
cone beam CT based guided implant placement. Clin Oral
Implants Res 2009;20:909.
[33] Johansson B, Grepe A, Wannfors K, et al. A clinical study
of changes in the volume of bone grafts in the atrophic
maxilla.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001;30(3):157–61.
http://sites.google.com/site/simplantisrael/simplantsourceshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd�search&db�pubmed&term�MEEUS%20L%5Bau%5D&dispmax�50http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd�search&db�pubmed&term�MEEUS%20L%5Bau%5D&dispmax�50
-
79COMPUTER-GUIDED DENTAL IMPLANTATION
[34] Verhoeven JW, Ruijter J, Cune MS, et al. Onlay grafts in
combination with endosseous implants in severe mandibular
atrophy; one year’s results of a prospective, quantitative
radiological study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11(6):583–94.
[35] Smolka W, Eggensperger N, Carollo V, et al. Changes in the
volume and density of calvarial split bone grafts after
alveolar
ridge augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res
2006;17(2):149–55.
[36] Krennmair G, Krainhofner M, Maier H, et al. Computerized
tomography-assisted calculation of sinus augmentation
volume. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21(6):907–13.
[37] Orentlicher GP, Goldsmith DH, Horowitz A. Thinking out of
the box—the use of “virtual” implant treatment planning and
surgery in challenging cases. Inside Dentistry
2008;4(6):58–64.
[38] Marx RE. Osteoradionecrosis: a new concept of its
pathophysiology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1983;41:283.
[39] Marx RE, Ames JR. The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in
bony reconstruction of the irradiated and tissue-deficient
patient. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1982;40:412–20.
[40] Granstrom G. Placement of dental implants in irradiated
bone: the case for using hyperbaric oxygen. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2006;64:812–8.
[41] Granstrom G. Radiotherapy, osseointegration, and hyperbaric
oxygen therapy. Periodontol 2000 2003;33:245.
[42] Koga DH, Salvajoli JV, Alves FA. Dental extractions and
radiotherapy in head and neck oncology: review of the
literature.
Oral Dis 2008;14:40–4.
[43] Horowitz AD, Orentlicher GP, Goldsmith DH. Case
report—computerized implantology: for the irradiated patient. J
Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:619–23.
[44] Komiyama A, Pettersson A, Hultin M, et al. Virtually
planned and template-guided implant surgery: an experimental
model matching approach. Clin Oral Implants Res
2010;22:308–13.
[45] Wagner A, Wanschitz F, Birkfellner W, et al. Computer-aided
placement of endosseous oral implants in patients after abla-
tive tumour surgery: assessment of accuracy. Clin Oral Implants
Res 2003;14:340–8.
[46] Casap N, Tarazi E, Wexler A, et al. Intraoperative
computerized navigation for flapless implant surgery and
immediate
loading in the edentulous mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 2005;20:92–8.
[47] D’Haese J, Van De Velde T, Komiyama A, et al. Accuracy and
complications using computer-designed stereolithographic
surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by means of dental
implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat
Res
2010. [Epub ahead of print].
DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00275.x.
[48] Arisan V, Karabuda ZC, Ozdemir T. Accuracy of two
stereolithographic guide systems for computer-aided implant
place-
ment: a computed tomography-based clinical comparative study. J
Periodontol 2010;81:43–51.
[49] Ozan O, Turkyilmaz I, Ersoy AE, et al. Clinical accuracy of
3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereo-
lithographic surgical guides in implant placement. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:394–401.
[50] Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Sekino S, et al. Tissue
reactions to abutment shift: an experimental study in dogs.
Clin
Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:82–8.
[51] Gracis SE, Nicholls JI, Chalupnik JD, et al.
Shock-absorbing behavior of five restorative materials used on
implants. Int J
Prosthodont 1991;4:282–91.
[52] Arisan V, Karabuda CZ, Ozdemir T. Implant surgery using
bone- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides in
totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post-operative outcomes of
computer-aided vs. standard techniques. Clin Oral
Implants Res 2010;21:980–8.
[53] Cannizzaro G, Torchio C, Leone M, et al. Immediate versus
early loading of flapless-placed implants supporting maxillary
full-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled clinical trial.
Eur J Oral Implantol 2008;1:127–39.
[54] Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D, Guerrero ME, et al.
Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of
three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. J Clin
Periodontol 2007;34:816–21.
[55] Wouters V, Mollemans W, Schutyser F. Calibrated
segmentation of CBCT for digitization of dental prostheses. Int
J
Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2011;6(5):609–16.
Doi:10.1007/s11548-011-0556-6. [Epub 2011 May 3].
[56] Misir AF, Sumer M, Yenisey M, et al. Effect of surgical
drill guide on heat generated from implant drilling. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2663–8.
http://DOI:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00275.x
Computer-Guided Planning and Placement of Dental
ImplantsHistorical overviewGeneral technology conceptsIndications
for useCompromised patientsDiscussionSummaryReferences