title: Accuracy of full guided vs. half-guided implant surgery.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The benefit in terms of higher accuracy for full guided implant surgery (template based guided cavity preparation and guided implant insertion) compared with half-guided surgery (template based guided cavity preparation and free-handed, manual implant insertion) has not been proved till now.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 38 identical implants were inserted into five human cadaver jaws, after virtual implant planning with the coDiagnostiX(™) device. All cavities were drilled using templates equipped with tubes for guidance. At random, 19 implants were inserted in a free handed way (half-guided), whereas 19 implants were inserted in a guided way through the templates tubes (full guided). Postoperative cone beam computer tomographies (CBCT) were performed, and based on image fusion the total deviations between the virtual implant positions at the implants base and tip were determined and compared between both implantation modi.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean difference in accuracy between both implantation modalities at the implants bases was 0.72 mm (range: 0.16-1.17 mm, SD: 0.45). The mean difference in accuracy between both modalities at the implants tips was 0.46 mm (range: 0.16-1.23 mm. SD: 0.49). Although full guided implantation showed a generally higher accuracy (mean tip: 1.54 mm, range: 0.33-3.64 mm; mean base: 1.52 mm, range: 0.4-3.54 mm) than half-guided implantation (mean tip: 1.84 mm, range: 0.84-3.22 mm; mean base: 1.56 mm, range: 0.49-3.43 mm), the differences were not statistically significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The accuracy of half-guided implant surgery is comparable with full guided implant surgery.
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Surgery, Oral Radiology and Oral Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Sebastian.kuehl@unibas.ch
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kühl
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Zürcher
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Mahid
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Müller-Gerbl
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Filippi
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Cattin
mesh_terms: D002102:Cadaver; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography / Q000379:methods; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015921:Dental Implants; D017268:Dental Prosthesis Retention; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D007575:Jaw, Edentulous / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery; D007576:Jaw, Edentulous, Partially / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery; D008334:Mandible / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D010027:Osteotomy / Q000379:methods; D010347:Patient Care Planning / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D025321:Surgery, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D019415:Torque; D014584:User-Computer Interface
chemical_list: D015921:Dental Implants