Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillo-Facial Surgeryin of Stom
ISSN 1829-006X
2022; 67–73
Shared with The Gufo

COMPUTER SUPPORTED IMPLANT GUIDED SURGERY USING 3D PLANNING SOFTWARE

Gagik Hakobyan*, Hrant Grigoryan, Marina Manukyan, Tatevik Martirosyan, Hrachya Sahakyan

Yerevan State Medical University, Armenia · Grant Dent, Yerevan, Armenia · Radial dental clinic, Yerevan, Armenia · Akra Dental Clinc, Yerevan, Armenia

Received: 2025-05-21 · Published: 2022-11-05

© 2022 The Author(s) and the original publisher.

CC BY-NC 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Shared article.

Originally published in Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillo-Facial Surgeryin of Stom, 2022 — https://doi.org/10.58240/1829006X-2022.18.1-67.

Original title
COMPUTER SUPPORTED IMPLANT GUIDED SURGERY USING 3D PLANNING SOFTWARE
Authors
Gagik Hakobyan, Hrant Grigoryan, Marina Manukyan, Tatevik Martirosyan, Hrachya Sahakyan
Source journal
Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillo-Facial Surgeryin of Stom
Published
2022-11-05
Licence
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Original
https://doi.org/10.58240/1829006X-2022.18.1-67

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of implant treatment using computer 3D modeling and surgical guided. Materials and Methods: The study included 148 patients who underwent prosthodontics rehabilitation using dental implants in 20172022. 3D computer-aided modeling and surgical guide were used to plan the operation. To conduct a comparative analysis of the treatment results, two groups were formed: In group A (included 75 patients, fully guided surgery), in group B (included 73 patients). Results: In patients Group A intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications were noted (errors in the position, inclination), anatomical risk structures were invaded, after 3 years producing a survival rate of 96.2% In patients Group B, intraoperative complications were recorded; membrane perforation 4, errors in the position ofthe implants 16, the inclination of the implants 18, fenestration 12, after 3 years producing a survival rate of 97.6%. Mean marginal bone loss (MBL) patients in Group A were significantly higher than patients in group B (p < 0.05). In patients Group A the average surgical time from time of anesthesia to the placement of the healing abutment was 10.6 ± 2.9 min per implant, in patients Group B, the average surgical time was 16.4 ± 1.5 min per implant. Conclusion: The 3D modeling method and the controlled positioning of the implant allows surgical access with minimal trauma, reducing treatment time and complications
1 / ? 100% Open in new tab Download Cite

Loading the full text…

Download Follow Updates