Accuracy assessment of implant placement with versus without a CAD/CAM surgical guide by novices versus specialists via the digital registration method: an in vitro randomized crossover study

Abstract

Abstract Background Many studies demonstrated that surgical guides might reduce discrepancies compared with freehand implant placement. This randomized crossover study aimed to assess the effects of approaches, practitioners’ experience and learning sequences on the accuracy of single tooth implantation via digital registration method. No similar study was found. Methods This in vitro randomized crossover study enrolled 60 novice students (Group S) and 10 experienced instructors (Group I). Sixty students were randomly and evenly assigned to two groups (Group SA and SB). In Group SA, 30 students first performed single molar implant on a simulation model freehand (Group SAFH), and then with a CAD/CAM surgical guide (Group SASG). In Group SB, another 30 students first performed guided (Group SBSG) and then freehand (Group SBFH). Ten instructors were also divided into Group IAFH/IASG (n = 5) and IBSG/IBFH (n = 5) following the same rules. The accuracy of implant placement was assessed by the coronal and apical distance (mm) and angular (°) deviations using the digital registration method. T tests and nonparametric tests were used to compare the results among different groups of approaches, experience and sequences. Results For students, the coronal and apical distance and the angular deviations were significantly lower in surgical guide group than freehand group in total and in learning freehand first subgroup, but for learning surgical guide first subgroup the apical distance deviation showed no significant difference between two approaches. For students, the angular deviation of freehand group was significantly lower in learning surgical guide first group than learning freehand first group. For instructors, the coronal and apical distance and angular deviations showed no significant difference between two approaches and two sequences. For freehand approach, the coronal and apical distance and the angular deviations were significantly higher in student group than instructor group, while not significantly different between two groups for surgical guide approach. Conclusions For novices, using a surgical guide for the first implant placement may reduce the potential deviations compared with freehand surgery, and may reach a comparable accuracy with that of specialists. For simple single molar implantation, the surgical guide may not be significantly helpful for experienced specialists.