48 Clinical evidence and Science Figure 20_3D measurement methodology: Metric analysis of the implant position: three-dimensional deviations between the center axis of the planned and actual implant positions as measured at the implant shoulder (d1) and at the implant apex (d2), the vertical deviation measured at the implant shoulder (h) at the center of the coronal implant surface, and the deviation of the planned and actual implant axes (α) (adapted from Schnutenhaus et al. 2018) With CONELOG® SCREW-LINE implants further influencing factors like the region of implant placement, the dimensions of the implants, their primary stability, and the use of alveolar ridge preservation methods were examined (3). Before implant planning, sixty patients were randomized to either receive an alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction or the alveoli were left to heal spontaneously. Due to several dropouts, only the data of 48 patients could be superimposed and measured. The implant diameter, implant length, and the primary stability showed a significant effect, but only on one dimension of the implant position. Longer implants, implants with larger diameters, and high insertion torques seem to have an effect on the transfer accuracy. However, still a high degree of accuracy could be achieved with template-guided implant placement. The accuracy was considered superior to freehand implant placement and a clear benefit from a prosthetic point of view. The aim of the third study was, to examine the accuracy depending on the macro design of the implants (4). The freshly marketed guided CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE implants were compared to CONELOG® SCREW-LINE implants. Again, a high level of accuracy was obtained. The only significant difference was seen in the height of the implants. However, the authors concluded that a learning curve of the user when preparing the implant beds will lead to an increased accuracy of the position. DIGITAL WORKFLOW
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE0MzMw