Accuracy of the novel digital non-cross-arch surgical guides with integration of tooth undercut retention and screw-bone support for implant placement in mandibular free-end

Abstract

Abstract Background Large cross-arch free-end surgical guides can obscure the visual field, compromising surgical accuracy due to insufficient stability at the free-end. This in vitro study aims to evaluate the accuracy of novel digital non-cross-arch surgical guides designed for implant placement at the mandibular free-end, incorporating tooth undercut retention and screw-bone support. Materials and methods A mandibular dental model lacking left molars was utilized to fabricate unilateral (cross-arch) tooth-supported surgical guides (GT I, n = 20). Subsequently, two additional types of surgical guides were fabricated: GT II (covering two teeth, n = 20) and GT III (covering three teeth, n = 20). These novel surgical guides were designed to utilize the undercut of the supporting teeth for retention and enhance stability with screw-bone support at the guide’s free-end. Furthermore, 60 identical guiding blocks were assembled on the three types of surgical guides to facilitate the implants’ insertion. On a phantom head, 120 implant replicas were placed at the Federal Dentaire Internationale (FDI) teeth positions #36 and #37 on the dental model, employing a combination of surgical guides and guiding blocks. To assess accuracy, planned and placed implant positions were compared using intraoral optical scanning. Discrepancies in angulation and linear deviations, including the coronal/apical 3D deviations, lateral deviation as well as depth deviation, were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test (α = 0.05). Results GT I exhibited significantly largest discrepancies, including angular and linear deviations at the crest and apex at every implant site. Especially in depth, at implant site #36, the mean deviation value of GT I (0.27 ± 0.13 mm) was twice as large as GT III (0.13 ± 0.07 mm), and almost twice as large as GT II (0.14 ± 0.08 mm). However, at implant site #37, this deviation increased to almost a five-fold relationship between GT I (0.63 ± 0.12 mm) and II (0.14 ± 0.09 mm), as well as between GT I and III (0.13 ± 0.09 mm). No significant discrepancies existed between the novel surgical guides at either implant site #36 or #37. Conclusion This study provides a practical protocol for enhancing accuracy of implant placement and reducing the size of free-end surgical guides used at mandibular molar sites.