Accuracy of open‐sleeved vs. closed‐sleeved static computer‐assisted implant systems in immediate maxillary molar implant placement: An in vitro study

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesThe objective of this study is (1) to compare the accuracy of an open‐sleeved static computer‐assisted implant system (sCAIS) with a closed‐sleeve sCAIS and free‐hand approach in immediate implant placement (IIP) of maxillary molar sites and (2) to investigate the influence of socket morphology on these approaches.Materials and MethodsNinety partially edentulous duplicated maxillary models simulating three different molar sockets (type A, B, and C based on Smith and Tarnow's classification) were investigated. Three modalities, including sCAIS with open‐sleeves, sCAIS with closed‐sleeves, and free‐hand approach, were applied separately to 30 models with 120 sockets. A customized Python script automatically measured the deviations between the virtual and actual implant positions for all 360 implants.ResultsThe 3D deviations of sCAIS were significantly influenced by the socket and sleeve types. Both guided groups exhibited significantly less deviation than the free‐hand approach. Type A and C sockets resulted in better implant positions than type B socket sites. In type B sockets, the open‐sleeve group achieved significantly less deviation compared to the closed‐sleeve group, with respect to apical global (1.34 ± 0.53 vs. 1.84 ± 0.59 mm), coronal horizontal (0.68 ± 0.36 vs. 0.93 ± 0.34 mm), apical horizontal (1.21 ± 0.59 vs. 1.74 ± 0.63 mm), and angular (3.30 ± 1.41 vs. 4.41 ± 1.96°) deviations.ConclusionsGuided implant surgery significantly reduces deviations during molar IIP compared to free‐hand procedures. Furthermore, the use of open‐sleeve sCAIS appears to be more effective in minimizing deviations in type B sockets when compared with the closed‐sleeve guided system.