UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA
“JÚLIO DE MESQUITA FILHO”
Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia
Campus de São José dos Campos
ORIGINAL ARTICLE DOI: https://doi.org/10.4322/bds.2023.e3472
1
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus
digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in
esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
Precisão de
stents
sinterizados por laser seletivo guiados por computador
versus stents
de processamento de luz digital na
colocação imediata de implantes em região estética: um ensaio randomizado
Mahetab HAMDI
1
, Amr Hosny EL KHADEM
1
, Ashraf Abel Moneam AMER
1
1 - Cairo University, Faculty of Dentistry. Cairo, Egypt.
How to cite: Hamdi M, El Khadem AH, Amer AAM. Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light
processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial. Braz. Dent. Sci. 2023;26(2):e3472.
https://doi.org/10.4322/bds.2023.e3472
ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing
stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone. Material and Methods: The patients were selected
according to the eligibility criterias. The selected patients were randomly allocated to either digital light processing
stents (test group) or selective laser sintered computer guided stents (control group). Proper examination
and diagnostic records were done for each patient followed by triple scan protocol with cone beam computer
tomography (CBCT). Planning and construction of tooth supported computer guided surgical stent was done
by either digital light processing technique for test group or selective laser sintering for control group. Twenty
implants were inserted following computer guided implant placement protocol. After post-operative CBCT pre
and post images were merged using blue sky bio software. Linear and angular deviations between planned
implant and actual implant positions were measured. Results: Tests were considered statistically signicant if
the p- value was less than 0.05. Difference in means were calculated for the analysis of continuous variables with
corresponding 95% condence intervals. There was no statistical difference between selective laser sintering
and digital light processing groups in all measured terms. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study,
both techniques can be used for immediate implant placement with clinically satisfactory results decreasing the
positional errors associated with immediate implant placement.
KEYWORDS
Computer aided; Immediate dental implant; Stents; Surgery; Guided surgery.
RESUMO
Objetivo: Comparar a acurácia de
stents
sinterizados por laser seletivo guiados por computador
versus stents
de processamento de luz digital na colocação imediata de implantes em região estética. Material e Métodos:
Os pacientes foram selecionados de acordo com os critérios de elegibilidade. Os pacientes selecionados foram
distribuídos aleatoriamente nos seguintes grupos:
stents
de processamento de luz digital (grupo experimental)
ou
stents
sinterizados por laser seletivo guiados por computador (grupo controle). Os registros dos exames
adequados e diagnósticos foram realizados para cada paciente seguido por um protocolo de varredura tripla com
tomograa computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC).O planejamento e a construção do
stent
cirúrgico guiado
por computador com suporte dentário foram feitos pela técnica de processamento de luz digital para o grupo
experimental ou sinterização a laser seletivo para o grupo controle. Vinte implantes foram inseridos seguindo
o protocolo de colocação de implante guiado por computador. Após a TCFC pós-operatória, as imagens pré e
pós foram mescladas usando o
software blue sky bio
. Foram medidos os desvios lineares e angulares entre o
implante planejado e as posições reais do implante. Resultados: Os testes foram considerados estatisticamente
2
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the demand of immediate implant
placement remarkably increased [1]. It offers shorter
treatment period, fewer surgical intervention and
improved patient esthetics and satisfaction [1,2].
According to Slagter et al. [3] systematic review,
immediate implant was accompanied by 97.1%
survival for the rst year.
Although such technique offers a promising
solution for treatment of hopeless teeth in
patient with high esthetic demands, it could
not compete with the routine implant protocol.
It has been associated with both linear and
angular errors that can lead to serious positional
complications [2,4]. Such positional errors might
be due to the local anatomy of the socket after
extraction, osteotomy drills might deect from
intended site of preparation due to the palatal
bony slope of the socket resulting in a suboptimal
implant position [5]. Accurate implant placement
in immediate implant cases is very critical as it
directly affects the esthetics outcome [6].
With the growing eld of computer guided
surgery, many researchers introduced the use of
guided surgery for immediate implant placement
and reported increased success rate for computer
guided immediate implant placement [6,7].
Arisan et al. [8] reported a dramatically decrease in
the positional errors in computer guided implants
compared to the free hand one. Alzoubi et al
recommended the use of computer guided stent for
immediate implant for more accurate results [9].
However, also CAD CAM surgical stents
have been associated with linear and angular
errors [10-13]. For instance, Jung et al. [14]
reported a mean deviation of 1.07 mm at the
entry point, 1.6 mm at the apex and a mean of
5.3° angular deviation. Comparable results were
reported by a systematic review studying the
accuracy of static computer implant surgery. It
revealed a total mean error of 1.2 mm at the entry
point, 1.4 mm at the apical point and deviation
of 3.5° [15].That transfer deviation is a result of
accumulative errors starting from planning stage
to the operative phase [15-17]. Errors can be
generated from any step in the computer aided
implant placement cascade.
The errors can be classied into ve main
categories: imaging, planning, stent support,
surgical kit related factors (sleeve/drill
combination) and manufacturing related errors.
Regarding the imaging related errors, The used
imaging modality, geometric configuration
and radiographic unit parameters, metal
artifacts and patient movement are all effective
parameters [18-20]. Furthermore, the scanning
protocol whether single, dual or triple protocol is
used. Planning related errors can result from either
the planning software itself or examiners errors
that include Volume rendering, ducial marker
identication and visualization. Regarding stent
support, Tooth supported stent can offer more
stable guide with higher accuracy [21]. For surgical
kit, the sleeve/drill combination properties should
be well studied including the clearance between
drill and sleeve, sleeve height, offset amount.
Finally, whether single or multiple sleeve system
is used [22]. The stent manufacturing technology
may have an inuence on the overall accuracy
of the stent. Whether different manufacturing
techniques can affect the amount of linear and
angular deviation in computer guided implant
especially in challenging cases as immediate
implant or not, the literature addressing such issue
is limited and inconclusive [23].
Selective laser sintering (SLS) is one of
the most and oldest used additive prototyping
techniques in dentistry. It uses a computer guided
carbon dioxide laser beam to fuse a thermoplastic
powder together to build up a 3 D prototype
layer by layer [24]. The unscanned powder in the
signicativos se o valor de p fosse menor que 0,05. A diferença nas médias foi calculada para a análise das
variáveis contínuas com intervalos de conança de 95%. Não houve diferença estatística entre os grupos de
sinterização a laser seletivo e processamento digital de luz em todos as variáveis mensuradas. Conclusão: Dentro
das limitações deste estudo, ambas as técnicas podem ser utilizadas para colocação imediata de implantes com
resultados clinicamente satisfatórios diminuindo os erros posicionais associados à colocação imediata de implantes.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Projeto Assistido por Computador; Implante Dentário de Carga Imediata; Estentes; Cirurgia Assistida por
Computador; Cirurgia.
3
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
previously sintered layer is left to function as a
support for the next layers. SLS was reported to
have high accuracy of maximum standard error
0.1-0.6 mm and capability of constructing small
parts of 0.5 mm [25]. Beside that, the absence
of the support material and material versatility
allowed SLS to be one of the most used additive
technologies in dentistry. However, the high
cost of SLS and the slow process are the main
disadvantages of the technique [25].
DLP is a more recent type of liquid
polymerization printing. The designed 3D
object is built up layer by layer by tracing the
surface of photopolymer resin with ultraviolet
depolarized light [26]. The whole image for the
layer is displayed from a projector and harden at
once decreasing the curing time. It needs support
material to support the prototype during printing.
The low cost and decreased process time allowed
DLP technology to grow rapidly [27].
The aim of current study was to compare
accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided
stents versus digital light processing stents in
immediate implant placement in esthetic zone. The
null hypothesis was ” the manufacturing technique
has no influence on the accuracy of computer
immediate implant placement in esthetic zone.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
This was a randomized clinical trial, triple
blinded, two arm parallel group, with allocation
ratio 1:1. The study was conducted in research
clinic, Prosthodontic department, Faculty of
dentistry, Cairo university, Egypt and was
approved by Ethics Committee of Scientific
Research at Faculty of Dentistry with registration
number 17910. It was registered online at
clinicaltrial.gov with identifier registration
number NCT03211819.
Sample size calculation was done using
R statistical package, The R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. The results showed that a
total sample size of 16 implants will be adequate
to detect a mean difference of 1.54 mm (±1.03)
in implant position between study groups with
a power of 80% and a two-sided significance
level of 5%; with equal allocation to two arms
(8 implants in each group).
A total of 20 implants were inserted. The
patients were recruited according to the following
eligibility criteria:
Inclusion criteria
• Adult patient elder than 18 years and had
good oral hygiene;
• The patient had a non-restorable tooth/teeth
in esthetic zone;
• The tooth is asymptomatic with no periapical
lesion or stula;
• Small radiolucency that was included within
the osteotomy was an exception;
• 3 mm or more bone apical to the tooth root
and a minimum of 1.5 mm interdental bone
between the tooth root and the adjacent
teeth;
• Intact labial bone at level comparable to
adjacent teeth;
• At least 2 mm band of keratinized mucosa.
Exclusion criteria
• heavy smoking;
• any systemic condition that is considered
absolute contraindication for implant;
• placement;
• pregnancy;
• in adequate inter-arch space;
• parafunctional habits as bruxism.
The patients were randomly allocated to
either test or control group using a computer-
generated table of random numbers.
Intervention for both groups
Preparatory phase
Dental and medical history was taken
followed by careful examination for the entire
oral cavity and teeth. Impressions were made
and poured twice. The target tooth was waxed
up to its nal restorative shape with scanable
wax. The target tooth in the second poured cast
was trimmed.
Scanning protocol
A triple scanning protocol was followed for
all participating patients. CBCT was done for
each patient. Moreover, the 2 casts were optically
scanned (DOF freedom HD, extra-oral scanner,
United states of America).
4
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
Preparing the virtual model
Superimposition of the 3-D models
The surgical stent was designed using the
implant planning software (Blue sky bio plan 4
version, United states). DICOM les from the cbct
and STL les from the 2 casts scan were imported
to the blue sky.
The patient CBCT image and The cast scans
STL format les, were imported to the software.
The superimposition function of the software
was utilized to superimpose the 3-D images of
the virtual casts to the CBCT reconstructed 3-D
image then Virtual implant position was optimized
according to both the functional and esthetic needs.
Designing the surgical stent
Hypothetically, the surgical stent may be
considered as consisting of two functionally
different parts. A locating or reference part, which
is the stent body itself. The stent body ts on the
patient’s teeth, soft tissue, or bone to place the
other part in an exact planned position. The second
part is a sleeve hole, in which a metal sleeve ts
guide the drills, and subsequently the implants, to
the pre-planned depth and orientation.
The guide tube is automatically generated
by the software parallel to the long axis of the
planned virtual implant after determination of
four parameters in the advanced panel of its guide
module. The parameters are related to the surgical
kit and specic for each implant system. These
parameters are the outer sleeve diameter and the
sleeve height, the offset and the drill stop. These
parameters control the diameter and length of
the guide tube location of the metal to govern the
depth of drilling for guided insertion of the implant
future in the same depth of the virtual one by
changing the offset (Figure 1). All parameters are
supplied in the company catalogue only the offset
was calculated for each implant (Equation 1).
offset distance =
prolongation distance* - (drill stop value + implant length)
(1)
In the guide module, the draw outline
function was selected to draw the surgical stent
outline on the model with trimmed tooth and then
converted into 3-D stent through function create.
*Prolongation distance is distance from drill stop to drill tip.
The completed surgical stent design was saved
in STL format to be exported to the manufacturing
unit. Stents used for the rst group patients were
3-D printed by Selective Laser Sintering (EOS4
Mega selective laser sintering) of polymeric
powder (polyamide) (Figure 2). Stents used for the
second group patients were 3-D printed by Digital
Light Processing2 (Dent 2 3D printer Mogassam)
of a photo reactive acrylate liquid (Figure 3).
The adaptation of the manufactured stents was
checked on the corresponding casts, and the metal
sleeve was tted in sleeve hole.
Figure 1 - Diagrammatic representation of the offset.
Figure 2 - Selective Laser Sintered stent.
Figure 3 - Digital Light Processed stent.
5
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
Surgical phase
Atraumatic extraction
The tooth was atraumatically extracted
aided by twist periotome, and the integrity of the
buccal bone plate was examined. After that, the
stent adaptation was checked in patient mouth
(Figure 4).
Drilling and implant insertion
The stent was held in its place and osteotomy
was sequential drilled by the use of Direct implant
kit for computer guided surgery. Under copious
irrigation of sterile saline. The implant was manual
threaded through the stent until resistance was
Figure 4 - Surgical procedure. a & b: atraumatic extraction; c: curettage of the socket; d: checking the stent fit; e: Osteotomy preparation
through the guide.
felt, after complete implant insertion covering
screw was tightened (Figure 4). Postoperative
cone beam CT was made.
Outcome assessment
For outcome assessment the virtual plan was
exported and superimposed to the post-operative
cone beam. The accuracy of implant placement
was measured in terms of both linear (both
apically and coronally) and angular deviation
of the actual implant from planned one by
Two independent operators (Figures 5 and 6).
Accuracy was measured in the verication view
of bluesky software in two slices one buccolingual
and other mesiodistal.
6
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
RESULTS
Statistical analysis was performed using
Statistical Package For The Social Sciences
(SPSS) software (version 20, IBM corp., U.S.A.).
Inter-observer reliability was assessed using
Intra-class correlation coefcient between two
observers. Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) was
used to assess normality of data distribution.
Independent sample t test was used to compare
the different deviation parameters (i.e., global,
angular, depth and lateral deviation) between
the two studied groups. Then statistical analysis
to compare the combined results of SLS and
that of DLP was made. Tests were considered
statistically signicant if the p- value was less
than 0.05. Difference in means were calculated
for the analysis of continuous variables with
corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The
results were tabulated and statistically analysed
by the help of a Professional academic statistician
blinded to study groups.
Results of deviation in mesiodistal slice
(Table I)
On comparing combined global linear
deviation of both SLS and DLP groups the SLS
group showed less global linear deviation at the
implant shoulder (coronal) compared to the
DLP with mean values 0.63 mm and 0.69 mm
respectively. The same was found at implant
apex (apical) with 0.92 mm mean deviation for
the SLS and 1.26 mm for the DLP. But there was
no statistical difference in both the coronal and
apical linear deviation
On statistical analysis of the lateral linear
deviation of the two groups, the SLS group
showed less mean lateral deviation 0.29 mm for
Figure 6 - Linear deviation measured in mesiodistal slice.
Figure 5 - Reference planes: 1) long axis of planned implant; 2)
long axis of the actual implant; 3) coronal reference plane; 4) apical
reference plan.
Table I - Statistical Analysis Of Mean Difference Between SLS And DLP Groups, 95% Confidence Intervals And P-Value Groups In Mesio-Distal Slice
Measurements in Mesio-Distal Slice
Independent Sample T- Test
Interpretation
Mean of the
differences
95% Confidence
Interval
P-Value
Coronal
Global Linear Deviation -0.0614 -0.4693 to 0.3464 0.75 No Statistical Difference
Lateral Linear Deviation -0.1363 -0.3708 to 0.0983 0.2316 No Statistical Difference
Depth Linear Deviation 0.1414 -0.4258 to 0.7087 0.5992 No Statistical Difference
Apical
Global Linear Deviation -0.3386 -0.8628 to 0.1857 0.1863 No Statistical Difference
Lateral Linear Deviation -0.1716 -0.9287 to 0.5855 0.6325 No Statistical Difference
Depth Linear Deviation -0.0257 -0.5476 to 0.4962 0.9169 No Statistical Difference
Angular -0.7757 -2.4453 to 0.8939 0.3338 No Statistical Difference
7
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
the coronal deviation and 0.65 mm for the apical
one compared with 0.43 mm and 0.82 mm for
DLP respectively without statistical difference
Regarding the depth deviation, there was not
any statistical difference between both groups. The
SLS group had mean depth deviation of 0.57 mm
coronally and 0.58 mm apically in mesio-distal
slice. While DLP showed mean depth deviation of
0.43 mm coronally and 0.61 mm apically
the SLS group showed angular deviation
of 2.38° while DLP 3.14° with no statistical
difference between both groups.
Results of deviation in buccolingual slice
(Table II)
The SLS group showed less global linear
deviation at the implant shoulder (coronal)
compared to the DLP with mean values 0.54 mm
and 0.96 respectively. The same was found at
implant apex (apical|) with 1 mm for the SLS and
1.64 mm for the DLP. But there was no statistical
difference in both the coronal and apical linear
deviation.
Moreover, the SLS group had less lateral
deviation 0.39 mm for the coronal deviation
and 0.85 mm for the apical one compared with
0.73 mm and 1.3 mm for DLP respectively with
no statistical difference.
Regarding depth deviation, there was
not any statistical difference between both
groups. The SLS group had less depth deviation
0.31 mm coronally and 0.62 mm apically. While
DLP showed more depth deviation 0.47 mm
coronally and 1.24 mm apically.
For angular deviation, the SLS group showed
angular deviation of 3.14° while DLP 3.3° with
no statistical difference.
DISCUSSION
Accuracy of computer guided immediate
implant placement
There was no single case of pure linear
deviation without angular deviation. Meanwhile,
apical deviations showed higher values than
coronal deviations with only statistical difference
between apical and coronal lateral deviations.
These lead to the assumption that both apical
and coronal liner deviations were dependent on
angular deviation. This assumption is braced by
Jung et al. [14] and Van Assche and Quirynen [28].
In literature, many studies [12,16,29-34]
attributed Such deviation to nature of the
guided surgery that suffers aws of accumulative
error starting from CBCT acquisition errors,
superimposition, conversion of dicomes to STL
le, manufacturing technique, guide design and
support. Some of those studies [22,28,35,36]
discussed the relation between the deviation of
actual implant and both the guide adaptation and
mechanical components of the guide in terms of
sleeve height, clearance between osteotomy drill
and sleeve, and the offset.
Cassetta et al. [35] estimated that 62.7%
of the total implant positioning error was due to
the properties of the sleeve/ drill combination.
The same was reported by Apostolakis and
Kourakis [22] who studied the interaction
between implant position accuracy and each of
Table II - Statistical Analysis Of Mean Difference In Accuracy Measurements In Bucco-Lingual Slice Between SLS And DLP Groups, 95%
Confidence Intervals And P-Value
Measurement in Bucco-lingual slice
Independent Sample T- Test
Interpretation
Mean of the
differences
95% Confidence
Interval
P-Value
Coronal
Global Linear Deviation -0.4048 -0.9306 To 0.120 0.1201 No Statistical Difference
Lateral Linear Deviation -0.3452 -0.8825 To 0.1921 0.1885 No Statistical Difference
Depth Linear Deviation -0.1564 -1.1340 To 0.8212 0.7351 No Statistical Difference
Apical
Global Linear Deviation -0.5479 -1.3201 To 0.2244 0.1493 No Statistical Difference
Lateral Linear Deviation -0.4434 -1.0960 To 0.2092 0.1659 No Statistical Difference
Depth Linear Deviation -0.6009 -1.4650 To 0.2632 0.1569 No Statistical Difference
Angular -0.1743 -1.6950 To 2.0436 0.8435 No Statistical Difference
8
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
the following: sleeve height, clearance between
the drills and the sleeve, offset value and nally
the implant length. They had concluded that
implant length, sleeve clearance, and offset are
proportionally related to the error in implant
positioning, while the sleeve length is inversely
related to the error [22]. These results highly
support the assumption of deviation being
primary angular followed by associated linear
deviation.
The surgical kit design may be considered
as an effective factor in the guided implant
placement accuracy. Systems with drill guide
would show higher error values since there are
two clearance gaps. There is clearance between
the sleeve and the drill guide, and another
clearance is between the drill and the drill guide
itself [35]. Furthermore, the abrasion of the
sleeve itself should be taken into consideration
especially if used several times [22].
Depth deviation may be slightly different.
It was reported that the main causes of depth
deviation in guided surgery might be the
vertical setting of the guide itself in addition to
accumulative errors of the guided surgery that
were mentioned above [22,37-39].
SLS versus DLP
In spite the statistical analysis revealed
insignicant difference between both groups (SLS
and DLP) in all terms of accuracy measurements,
DLP showed the higher mean values of all terms
of deviation measurements.
The superiority of SLS could be attributed
to the nature of manufacturing technique itself.
For instance, the absence of support material that
represented one of the weakness points of DLP
could be considered an important reason of the
superior adaptation of the SLS guides. Moreover,
the small particle sizes and the minimal layer
thickness of SLS were other factors [24].
On reviewing the DLP technique problems,
the need for both supporting material and post
curing cycle could be considered their main
problem. Even after post curing cycle, the
material was easily scratched that might indicate
incomplete curing of the material that might be
the cause of the less adaptation. That was in
accordance with a previous review of literature
that stated that both the rough surface nish
and need of support material were the main
limitations of such technique [40].
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the current study the
following can be concluded:
Computer guided stents can decrease the
positional errors associated with immediate
implant placement.
The null hypothesis was accepted,
manufacturing technique has no influence on
overall accuracy of computer guided surgical stent
in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone.
Both techniques can be used for immediate implant
placement with clinically satisfactory results.
Author’s Contributions
MH: Conceptualization, methodology,
software, investigation, resources, data curation,
writing – original draft preparation, writing
– review & editing, visualization and funding
acquisition. AHEK: Conceptualization, validation,
formal analysis data curation review & editing,
visualization, supervision, project administration.
AAMA: Conceptualization, methodology,
investigation, resources, writing – original
draft preparation, writing – review & editing,
visualization, supervision.
Conict of Interest
The authors have no proprietary, nancial,
or other personal interest of any nature or kind
in any product, service, and/or company that is
presented in this article.
Funding
This research did not receive any specic
grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
Regulatory Statement
This study was conducted in accordance
with all the provisions of the local human subjects
oversight committee guidelines and policies of:
Ethics Committee of Scientic Research at Faculty of
Dentistry. The approval code for this study is: 17910.
9
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
REFERENCES
1. Tonetti MS, Cortellini P, Graziani F, Cairo F, Lang NP, Abundo
R, etal. Immediate
versus
delayed implant placement after
anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized
controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2017;44(2):215-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12666. PMid:27978602.
2. Koh RU, Rudek I, Wang H-L. Immediate implant placement:
positives and negatives. Implant Dent. 2010;19(2):98-108. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181d47eaf. PMid:20386212.
3. Slagter KW, den Hartog L, Bakker NA, Vissink A, Meijer HJ,
Raghoebar GM. Immediate placement of dental implants in
the esthetic zone: a systematic review and pooled analysis. J
Periodontol. 2014;85(7):e241-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/
jop.2014.130632. PMid:24502614.
4. Ayman DM, Elkhadem AH, Elkerdawy MW. Evaluation of accuracy
in computer guided versus free hand immediate implant
placement in fresh extraction sockets: a randomized controlled
clinical trial. Indian J Public Heal Res Dev. 2022;13(1):131-42.
5. Alzoubi F, Massoomi N, Nattestad A. Accuracy assessment of
immediate and delayed implant placements using CAD/CAM
surgical guides. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(5):391-8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00017. PMid:27266995.
6. Kotb A, Elkerdawy M, Elfar M. Esthetic outcome of computer-
guided versus free-hand immediate implant placement in fresh
extraction sockets in esthetic zone, a randomized clinical trial.
Indian J Public Heal Res Dev. 2020;11(12):140-7.
7. Edelmann AR, Hosseini B, Byrd WC, Preisser JS, Tyndall DA,
Nguyen T,etal. Exploring effectiveness of computer-aided
planning in implant positioning for a single immediate implant
placement. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(3):233-9. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-15-00056. PMid:26652644.
8. Arısan V, Karabuda CZ, Mumcu E, Özdemir T. Implant positioning
errors in freehand and computer-aided placement methods: a
single-blind clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants. 2013;28(1):190-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/
jomi.2691. PMid:23377066.
9. Alzoubi F, Massoomi N, Nattestad A. Accuracy assessment of
immediate and delayed implant placements using CAD/CAM
surgical guides. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(5):391-8. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00017. PMid:27266995.
10. Schneider D, Marquardt P, Zwahlen M, Jung RE. A systematic
review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-
guided template-based implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants
Res. 2009;20(Suppl. 4):73-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0501.2009.01788.x. PMid:19663953.
11. Nickenig H-J, Eitner S, Rothamel D, Wichmann M, Zöller JE.
Possibilities and limitations of implant placement by virtual
planning data and surgical guide templates. Int J Comput Dent.
2012;15(1):9-21. PMid:22930944.
12. Cassetta M, Stefanelli LV, Giansanti M, Di Mambro A, Calasso S.
Depth deviation and occurrence of early surgical complications
or unexpected events using a single stereolithographic surgi-
guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;40(12):1377-87. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.09.009. PMid:22001378.
13. D’haese J, Van De Velde T, Komiyama A, Hultin M, De Bruyn
H. Accuracy and complications using computer-designed
stereolithographic surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by
means of dental implants: a review of the literature. Clin Implant
Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(3):321-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1708-8208.2010.00275.x. PMid:20491822.
14. Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J, Wismeijer D, Zwahlen M,
Hämmerle CH,etal. Computer technology applications
in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Intern J
Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):92-109. PMid:19885437.
15. Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The
accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(29,
Suppl 16):416-35. PMid:30328191.
16. D’haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A.
Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery.
Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):121-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
prd.12175. PMid:28000275.
17. Naziri E, Schramm A, Wilde F. Accuracy of computer-assisted
implant placement with insertion templates. GMS Interdiscip
Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW. 2016;5:15. PMid:27274440.
18. Loubele M, Maes F, Jacobs R, van Steenberghe D, White SC,
Suetens P. Comparative study of image quality for MSCT and
CBCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial radiology applications.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;129(1–3):222-6. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/rpd/ncn154. PMid:18583372.
19. Choi Y, Mai HN, Mai HY, Ha JH, Li LJ, Lee DH. The effects
of distribution of image matched fiducial markers on
accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery. J Prosthodont.
2020;29(5):409-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13171.
PMid:32237001.
20. Tatakis DN, Chien HH, Parashis AO. Guided implant surgery
risks and their prevention. Periodontol 2000. 2019;81(1):194-208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/prd.12292. PMid:31407433.
21. El Kholy K, Lazarin R, Janner SFM, Faerber K, Buser R, Buser D.
Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on
accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery. Clin Oral
Implants Res. 2019;30(11):1067-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
clr.13520. PMid:31381178.
22. Apostolakis D, Kourakis G. CAD/CAM implant surgical guides:
maximum errors in implant positioning attributable to the
properties of the metal sleeve/osteotomy drill combination. Int
J Implant Dent. 2018;4(1):34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-
018-0146-2. PMid:30411253.
23. Keßler A, Dosch M, Reymus M, Folwaczny M. Influence of 3D-
printing method, resin material, and sterilization on the accuracy
of virtually designed surgical implant guides. J Prosthet Dent.
2021;128(2):196-204. PMid:33573833.
24. Di Giacomo GA, da Silva JV, da Silva AM, Paschoal GH, Cury
PR, Szarf G. Accuracy and complications of computer-designed
selective laser sintering surgical guides for flapless dental
implant placement and immediate definitive prosthesis
installation. J Periodontol. 2012;83(4):410-9. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1902/jop.2011.110115. PMid:21819249.
25. Zaharia C, Gabor A-G, Gavrilovici A, Stan AT, Idorasi L, Sinescu
C,etal. Digital dentistry: 3D printing applications. J Interdiscip
Med. 2017;2(1):50-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jim-2017-0032.
26. Nulty A. 3D printing part 1 : a history and literature review of
3D print- ing technologies used. Indent (Engl). 2021;(May):1-17.
27. Schweiger J, Edelhoff D, Güth JF. 3d printing in digital prosthetic
dentistry: an overview of recent developments in additive
manufacturing. J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):2010. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3390/jcm10092010. PMid:34067212.
28. Van Assche N, Quirynen M. Tolerance within a surgical guide. Clin
Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(4):455-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1600-0501.2009.01836.x. PMid:20074247.
29. Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Teughels W,
Quirynen M. Depth and lateral deviations in guided implant
surgery : an RCT comparing guided surgery with mental
navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template. Clin Oral Implants
Res. 2015;26(11):1315-20. PMid:25179585.
30. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer
technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic
review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):25-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2. PMid:24660188.
10
Braz Dent Sci 2023 Apr/June;26 (2): e3472
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant placement in esthetic zone, a randomized controlled trial.
Hamdi M et al.
Accuracy of selective laser sintered computer guided stents
versus digital light processing stents in immediate implant
placement in esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
Date submitted: 2022 Mar 31
Accept submission: 2022 Oct 04
Mahetab Hamdi
(Corresponding address)
Cairo University, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo, Egypt.
Email: mahetab.hamdi@dentistry.cu.edu.eg
31. Bilhan H, Arat S, Mumcu E, Geckili O, Sakar O. Precision of
implant placement with stereolithographic templates: a pilot in
vitro study. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38(5):569-74. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00109. PMid:21126171.
32. Almeida E, Pellizzer EPE, Goiatto MC, Margonar R, Rocha EP,
Freitas AC,etal. Computer-guided surgery in implantology: review
of basic concepts. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(6):1917-21. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f4b1a0. PMid:21119455.
33. Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer
accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant
placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(4):416-23. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02337.x. PMid:22092586.
34. Schicho K, Figl M, Seemann R, Ewers R, Lambrecht JT, Wagner
A,etal. Accuracy of treatment planning based on stereolithography
in computer assisted surgery. Med Phys. 2006;33(9):3408-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2242014. PMid:17022237.
35. Cassetta M, Di Mambro A, Di Giorgio G, Stefanelli LV, Barbato E.
The influence of the tolerance between mechanical components
on the accuracy of implants inserted with a stereolithographic
surgical guide: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent
Relat Res. 2015;17(3):580-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12120.
PMid:23879723.
36. Schneider D, Schober F, Grohmann P, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE.
In-vitro evaluation of the tolerance of surgical instruments in
templates for computer-assisted guided implantology produced
by 3-D printing. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(3):320-5. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12327. PMid:24438229.
37. Vercruyssen M, van de Wiele G, Teughels W, Naert I, Jacobs R,
Quirynen M. Implant- and patient-centred outcomes of guided
surgery, a 1-year follow-up: an RCT comparing guided surgery with
conventional implant placement. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(12):1154-
60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12305. PMid:25197015.
38. Vercruyssen M, Jacobs R, Van Assche N, van Steenberghe D. The
use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means
of implants and its transfer to the surgical field: a critical review
on accuracy. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35(6):454-74. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01816.x. PMid:18429973.
39. Vercruyssen M, van de Wiele G, Coucke W, Naert I, Jacobs R,
Quirynen M. Implant and patient-centered outcome of guided
surgery, a 1-year follow-up: an rct comparing guided surgery
with conventional implant placement. J Clin Periodontol.
2014;41(12):1154-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12305.
PMid:25197015.
40. Winder J, Bibb R. Medical rapid prototyping technologies: state
of the art and current limitations for application in oral and
maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(7):1006-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.03.016. PMid:16003630.
