Treffer: Integration of unilateral tooth mucosa-supported retentive surgical guide design in implant guided surgery: an in-vitro study.
Materials (Basel). 2021 Jan 29;14(3):. (PMID: 33572781)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Sep;28(9):1113-1118. (PMID: 27440381)
BMC Oral Health. 2023 Nov 30;23(1):948. (PMID: 38036982)
J Chin Med Assoc. 2018 Nov;81(11):970-976. (PMID: 30369404)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Nov;30(11):1067-1075. (PMID: 31381178)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Sep-Oct;29(5):1071-8. (PMID: 25216132)
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49585. (PMID: 23185372)
J Oral Implantol. 2022 Oct 1;48(5):351-357. (PMID: 34937081)
Int J Implant Dent. 2022 Dec 13;8(1):65. (PMID: 36512162)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Feb;42(2):264-75. (PMID: 22789635)
J Oral Implantol. 2012 Oct;38(5):643-52. (PMID: 21905915)
J Prosthodont. 2022 Feb;31(2):155-164. (PMID: 33904640)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:416-435. (PMID: 30328191)
J Prosthodont. 2022 Dec;31(9):791-798. (PMID: 35067993)
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2023 May 9;16(2):117-132. (PMID: 37158181)
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Nov;132(5):986-993. (PMID: 36372586)
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020 Mar;32(2):161-170. (PMID: 31916380)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Sep/Oct;35(5):931-938. (PMID: 32991643)
Periodontol 2000. 2022 Feb;88(1):64-72. (PMID: 35103317)
Gerodontology. 2012 Jun;29(2):e340-7. (PMID: 21453418)
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 May;81(5):593-601. (PMID: 36716792)
J Dent. 2023 Dec;139:104748. (PMID: 37863173)
Indian J Psychol Med. 2013 Apr;35(2):121-6. (PMID: 24049221)
Int J Implant Dent. 2023 Oct 25;9(1):38. (PMID: 37875645)
J Dent Educ. 2016 Jan;80(1):83-90. (PMID: 26729688)
J Prosthodont. 2025 Mar 4;:. (PMID: 40038852)
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91. (PMID: 17695343)
BMC Oral Health. 2024 May 11;24(1):550. (PMID: 38734597)
J Dent. 2023 Jan;128:104384. (PMID: 36470471)
Dent Med Probl. 2020 Apr-Jun;57(2):191-196. (PMID: 32649808)
J Prosthodont Res. 2022 Jan 11;66(1):29-39. (PMID: 33504723)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Sep;32(9):1097-1104. (PMID: 34218450)
Weitere Informationen
Purpose: This study aimed to compare a retentive surgical guide design with a fixation pin design in unilateral mandibular distal extension cases and evaluate their resulting implant deviations.
Materials and Methods: Ten epoxy models with a soft tissue-simulating layer were used, each fitted with two surgical guide designs. The retentive guide featured clasp-like extensions, a 0.07 mm guide-to-tooth offset, and a 2.3 mm thickness. The fixation pin design had a 0.2 mm offset, a 3 mm thickness, and one fixation pin in the distal edentulous region. Eight directional forces were applied through the drill handle. The models were scanned before and after force application. Simulated implants were inserted into 180 scans, resulting in a total of 306 implants. Post-scan data were superimposed onto the initial plan to assess implant and guide deviation.
Results: The baseline deviation was 0.34 ± 0.19 mm for the retentive design and 0.30 ± 0.14 mm for the fixation pin design (P = 1.00). Both designs produced simulated implant deviations within the recommended 2 mm safety margin. However, the retentive design showed significantly greater vertical implant deviation compared to the fixation design (0.99 ± 0.76 mm vs. 0.50 ± 0.34 mm, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Incorporating retention features into surgical guides reduces simulated implant displacement in unilateral distal extension cases. However, the retentive guide exhibited larger implant deviations than the fixation design and required additional software adjustments, indicating a need for further refinement.
(© 2025. The Author(s).)
Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval was granted by the local Ethics Committee of Alexandria University (IRB NO: 00010556-IORG0008839). Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.