Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillo-Facial Surgeryin of Stom
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.
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