Table 1_Assessing the precision of 3D-printed surgical templates in oral implant placement: a comparison of half and full-guided approaches.doc

BackgroundDigital guided implantology improves safety and precision compared to freehand methods. A survey indicated that half-guided templates are more commonly used than full-guided ones in China. This study aims to assess the accuracy of implant placements using half-guided and full-guided digital surgical templates, considering factors like jaw location, tooth position, support type, implant timing, and bone density.
Methods87 implants (52 half-guided, 35 full-guided) were evaluated by comparing pre- and postoperative CBCT scans to measure deviations in coronal, apical, depth, and angular positions. Bone density was also assessed in relation to the implant deviations.
ResultsThe findings revealed that the half-guided group exhibited significantly greater deviations in several areas: maxillary angular deviations, anterior coronal and depth deviations, posterior depth deviations, tooth-supported guide depth deviations, immediate implant coronal and angular deviations, and delayed implant depth deviations (P < 0.05). No significant differences were noted in other measurements. In the bone density analysis, only the full-guided group showed a significant negative correlation between bone density and apical deviation (P < 0.05).
ConclusionBased on statistical results, power calculations, and subgroup effect sizes, the following clinical recommendations are derived: Half-guided templates, owing to their superior cost-effectiveness in fabrication time and cost, are recommended for use in mandibular posterior regions, mucosa-supported templates, delayed implantations, and clinical scenarios with uneven bone density distribution at implant sites. In contrast, full-guided templates are more suitable for maxillary implantations, anterior regions, tooth-supported templates, immediate implantations, and sites with homogeneous bone density distribution.