Print this page Email this page | Users Online: 6196
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 64-67

Implant guides: A literature review


Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Subharti Dental College and Hospital, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Submission06-Feb-2022
Date of Decision23-Mar-2022
Date of Acceptance07-Apr-2022
Date of Web Publication20-Jun-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Niyati Varshney
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Subharti Dental College and Hospital, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/srmjrds.srmjrds_23_22

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

In spite of significant developments in technologies and techniques, the correct positioning of dental implants remains an arduous task. Diagnostic casts and orthopantomogram do not provide the three-dimensional radiographic information essential for proper placing and orientation of the dental implant, which might lead to unforeseen results. Prosthetically guided implantology became the need for successful outcomes. In this concept, the ideal placement of an implant is determined by the final restoration and its correlation with adjoining structures. Three-dimensional radiography, considered to be the gold standard in implant planning in terms of accuracy, fails in meeting its objectives unless the data acquired are transferred with any guide or template. Various designs and sorts of implant guides have been described, ranging from basic designs that just indicate the appropriate implant site to extremely complicated designs that, while requiring a significant amount of time and money, guide the entire surgical procedure. This review article seeks to discuss the recent advancements in implant guides.

Keywords: Accuracy, dental implant, dynamic navigation, freehand approach, ideal placement, static navigation


How to cite this article:
Kusum CK, Varshney N, Trivedi A. Implant guides: A literature review. SRM J Res Dent Sci 2022;13:64-7

How to cite this URL:
Kusum CK, Varshney N, Trivedi A. Implant guides: A literature review. SRM J Res Dent Sci [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 30];13:64-7. Available from: https://www.srmjrds.in/text.asp?2022/13/2/64/347813


  Introduction Top


Dental implants have gained immense popularity as a treatment modality for the rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous patients. Implants have significantly improved patient satisfaction, esthetics, and the overall quality of life in comparison to the conventional prosthetic treatment options. The success rate of dental implants is influenced by the patient's examination, treatment planning, and execution of surgical skills.[1],[2],[3]

The need for exact implant placement inspired the emergence of the concept of prosthetically guided implantology. This concept dictated that accurate position and angulation of implants are determined initially during the diagnostic stage.[4],[5]

A slight deviation from the planned placement may not yield the optimum outcome, thus the surgical guide templates are considered crucial to maintain logical continuity throughout the diagnosis, prosthetic planning, and surgical phases. These implant guides upgrade the precision of dental implant positioning, reduce futile osteotomy, and sidestep other probable perils accompanying surgery, thereby decreasing surgical time and trauma and increasing patient compliance.[5],[6]

The electronic literature search was conducted from May 2015 to December 2021 using MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar for articles in the English language published in journals of dentistry using the following search terms: “dental implant and ideal placement,” “fabrication of implant guides,” “static guides,” “dynamic guides,” “guides and accuracy,” and “implant guides and zygomatic implant.” Thus, this literature review focuses mainly on the fabrication techniques of implant guides and its advancements in detail.


  Fabrication Top


Three basic fabrication techniques that are commonly used for implant guides fabrication are conventional freehand technique, analog milling using a dental surveyor, and computer-aided design/computer aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) technology.[7] With the advancement in implant imaging and three-dimensional implant planning programs, digital-aided implant surgeries have become popular.[8],[9] Many studies reveal that the computer-guided approach for implant placement has significantly greater accuracy and predictability than the conventional freehand approach, thus alleviating the occurrence of implant positioning errors.[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]

Digital guides can be manufactured using additive or subtractive techniques. The subtractive approach produces more homogeneous structures with sufficient accuracy, making it suited for intraoral prostheses with high occlusal forces, while the larger workpieces with high surface variation, better accuracy, and no raw material wastage are produced using additive manufacturing processes.[9]

Broadly, the procedure of CAD/CAM-based surgical guide fabrication can be divided into the following steps:

  • Fabrication of the radiographic template
  • Computerized tomography scan or data acquisition
  • Virtual implant planning, and
  • Fabrication of the stereolithographic (SLA) drill guide.[1]


Fabrication of radiographic template

The radio-opaque marker barium sulfate is commonly used in the fabrication of radiographic templates. Another option is to use a duplicate denture with radio-opaque markers in the center of the occlusal surfaces of the teeth, matching the screw access holes of the implant-supported prosthesis.

Computed tomography scan procedure/data acquisition

The spiral or volume acquisition computed tomography (CT) scanning procedure is performed with the radiographic template in place.[16]

Virtual implant planning using interactive planning software or 3D computer simulation

The surgeon and prosthodontist can simulate implant placement on the 3D model in conjunction with the parasagittal views using software such as Columbia Scientific Incorporated, Columbia, Nobel Guide, Nobel Biocave, Yorba Linda, California, I Dent Imaging Ltd., Hasharon, Israel, coDiagnostiX, and others. Specific dimension implants are selected, and their 3D replica is created on the computer model of the patient's jaw.[17]

Fabrication of stereolithographic drill guides

The SLA comprises a vat with a liquid photo-polymerized resin, which is polymerized in 1-mm cross-sectional increments specified during the CT formatting method. The vat completes around 80% of the overall polymerization, while the rest can be completed in a routine ultraviolet light-curing machine. Similarly, surgical templates are fabricated by connecting a sequence of minute triangles to the surface anatomy of the SLA model. Based on the surgical flap design, the extent of the buccal and lingual flanges can be predetermined. The diameter and angulation of the simulated implants are also recognized by the SLA machine, which selectively polymerizes resin around them, generating a cylindrical guide for each implant. The supporting resin triangles are swapped with surgical-grade stainless steel tubes from the cylindrical guide. Surgical templates are manufactured in this way, with metal sleeves corresponding to each fixture location and seating directly on the bone.[16]

Static navigation and dynamic navigation are the two most popular among the various digital guide systems. While studies state no superior accuracy of dynamic navigation over static navigation,[8],[18],[19] there are few other studies that prove dynamic navigation superior to static systems in terms of accuracy and precision for implant placement.[20],[21]


  Static Navigation Top


The static- or template-based system helps to communicate with predetermined sites using rapid prototyped guides in the operating field. The term “static” refers to a fixed implant positioning and does not allow for real-time monitoring of the implant placement procedure. Any intraoperative position is not possible without the removal of guide. These guides have become the most widely recommended guides available in the field of implant dentistry, especially for edentulous patients. For edentulous patients, static guides are indicated when a flapless technique is advocated, bone reduction is planned, or in full-mouth fixed prosthetic treatment.

Less intrusive surgery with less patient morbidity and a flapless approach make static guides superior. These guides restricts access to bone, leading to restraint irrigation of the drill throughout the procedure and thus potentially increasing heat output. Using static guides for implant placement is a challenge in insufficient mouth opening cases. This issue is exceptionally noticeable in the molar region, thus restricting its use in this area.[20]


  Dynamic Navigation Top


The dynamic system communicates through visual imaging devices with a virtual treatment plan to the operative area. This system uses a tracking array to perceive and track the position of optical reference markers placed.[8]

Optical technology uses either active or passive tracking arrays to trace the patient and the handpiece while viewing the images on display. Active system arrays radiate light tracked by stereo cameras, whereas passive systems utilize tracking arrays that reflect light emitted from a light source back to the stereo cameras.

During cone-beam CT (CBCT) scanning, a passive optical dynamic navigation system involves the use of fiducial markers firmly mounted to the patient's maxillary or mandibular arch. With the addition of an array, the fiducial markers allow for registration of the arch to the cameras. The array is joined to the clip that holds the fiducial markers and is positioned extraorally. The implant handpiece, in addition, contains an array, which, when paired with these markers, enables triangulation and, as a result, precise navigation. To accurately trace on display, the drill and patient-mounted arrays ought to be within the line of sight of the overhead stereo cameras.

It is recommended to utilize dynamic navigation in limited mouth opening, in difficult-to-reach areas, in same-day implant insertion surgery, and in tight interdental spaces conditions where static guides are ineffective. High precision, speed, and cost-effectiveness, as well as the flexibility to adjust implant size, system, and placement during surgery, are indeed assets. A collaborated team approach is also required for dynamic navigation. Its application is limited due to its sensitivity to reflections and interference with the line of sight betwixt the sensors and the cameras, as well as its higher cost, strict intraoperative referencing, and steep learning curve.[20]


  Recent Advancements Top


Zygomatic implant guides

Although zygomatic implants are commonly placed without the use of surgical guides, various methods have been documented that use initial drilling guides, with the implant still being manually inserted once the guide is removed. Limited access, poor sight during surgery, the flexibility of lengthy twist drills, and the curved or uneven bony surface at the base of the zygoma can all hinder the correct apical placement of the implant in the intended optimum position within the zygoma.

Due to the intricacies of zygomatic implant placement, meticulous preoperative preparation and transfer to the operating field are required. The bulk of available zygomatic implant guides provide for control of the implant's entrance site and emergence at the alveolus but not its trajectory or apical exit location within the zygoma. Metal drill guides, on the other hand, have just recently been designed to enable control over the zygoma implant's apical exit placement.[22]

Guides for sinus augmentation with implant placement

Mandelaris and Rosenfeld were the first to create a roadmap for a complex sinus augmentation procedure. The intricacy of the fabrication process, as well as the several types of surgical guides, suggested for the lateral window opening, but particularly the proposed guides were initially severe shortcomings.[23]

CAD/CAM surgical guides are readily available nowadays for sinus enlargement and implant implantation at the same time. Titanium screws were utilized to secure the guide in place for added stability. Although immobility was achieved during surgery, obstruction with the implant path, further bone removal from the screw, and the requirement for good bone quality remain its drawbacks. Furthermore, although it is recommended that the guide be removed when elevating the sinus floor, the inconvenience of withdrawing and adapting the guide during surgery is a serious setback. The tooth-borne surgical guide, on the other hand, provides better stability and convenience.[24]

Chairside fabrication of guides

Implant drilling guides can be fabricated in a dental office using low-cost desktop 3D printers with great precision. The low-cost desktop 3D printer reduces the cost of previous commercial printers and software, eliminates laboratory and shipping costs, and may boost the usage of guided surgery. First and foremost, knowledge of additive manufacturing will be necessary, as well as some calibration of the implant planning and 3D printing software, as there are various areas where an error might occur. This technology has a lot of potential in dentistry, and it will only get better as time goes on.

The manufacturing technique for a chairside CAD-CAM radiological and surgical guide for dental implants has been published by several authors. When incompatibilities exist among manufacturers' digital systems, notably between CBCTs and chairside acquisition devices, this approach integrates the analog approach and CAD-CAM techniques for diagnosing and treatment planning implant-supported restorations. The process can be used in dental offices that already have a CEREC Omnicam AC intraoral scanner and an MCXL milling unit, as well as any CBCT scanner. To begin the suggested 2-mm osteotomy site, which necessitates an additional step, a stone cast or printed model is required to secure the milling guide.[25]

Robotic technology

Throughout the procedure, robotic technology allows for clear visibility of real-time physical and visual guidance and allows the surgeon to alter the plan dynamically. It is a computerized navigational system intended to help with both the planning and the surgical aspects of dental implant surgery. It uses haptic robotic technology to provide tactile guidance by constraining the drill's location, orientation, and depth. Actuators, which impart forces for touch feedback and controllers, enable haptics. The actuator moves in mechanical motion whenever an electrical stimulus is delivered. Electroactive polymers, piezoelectric, electrostatic, and subsonic audio wave surface actuation are among the newer generations of actuator technologies that have faster response times. This mechanical stimulation aids in the formation of virtual objects in a computer simulation, their control, and the enhancement of remote control of machinery and devices, delivering real-time visual and tactile information to the user. The surgeon maintains absolute control while using this assistive technology. This ensures accuracy and consistency without requiring the creation of a specialized plastic guide or the risk of executing an unguided freehand method.[26]


  Conclusion Top


Implant guides will continue to be an essential tool for accurate implant positioning and angulation. The guides are fabricated by any technique or material, the choice will solely depend on the clinician's individual opinions and prior experience. Implant placement with robotics seems to be a fascinating technique, but still, more clinical trials are needed to unravel its application in the field of implant dentistry.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Ramasamy M, Raja R, Narendrakumar R. Implant surgical guides: From the past to the present. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2013;5:S98-102.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mijiritsky E, Ben Zaken H, Shacham M, Cinar IC, Tore C, Nagy K, et al. Variety of surgical guides and protocols for bone reduction prior to implant placement: A narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:2341.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kola MZ, Shah AH, Khalil HS, Rabah AM, Harby NM, Sabra SA, et al. Surgical templates for dental implant positioning; current knowledge and clinical perspectives. Niger J Surg 2015;21:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
4.
Annibali S, La Monaca G, Tantardini M, Cristalli MP. The role of the template in prosthetically guided implantology. J Prosthodont 2009;18:177-83.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kulkarni P, Bulbule N, Kakade D, Hakepatil N. Radiographic stents and surgical stents in implant placements: An overview. Int J Curr Res Rev 2019;11:11-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Yeshwante B, Baig N, Tambake SS, Tambake R, Patil V, Rathod R. Mastering dental implant placement : A review. J Appl Dent Med Sci 2017;3:220-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Sajjan MS, Yekula PS, Kovvuri SS, Alluri RR. A simple technique for fabrication of a surgical guide for predictable placement of dental implants. J Dent Implants 2017;7:11-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Mediavilla Guzmán A, Riad Deglow E, Zubizarreta-Macho Á Agustín-Panadero R, Hernández Montero S. Accuracy of computer-aided dynamic navigation compared to computer-aided static navigation for dental implant placement: An in vitro study. J Clin Med 2019;8:2123.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Nagi M. Accuracy of implant placement using three different surgical guides. Egypt Dent J 2018;64:3713-21.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Arısan V, Bölükbaşı N, Öksüz L. Computer-assisted flapless implant placement reduces the incidence of surgery-related bacteremia. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1985-93.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Vermeulen J. The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: Guided vs. freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:617-24.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Smitkarn P, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. The accuracy of single-tooth implants placed using fully digital-guided surgery and freehand implant surgery. J Clin Periodontol 2019;46:949-57.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Alevizakos V, Mitov G, Stoetzer M, von See C. A retrospective study of the accuracy of template-guided versus freehand implant placement: A nonradiologic method. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2019;128:220-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Farley NE, Kennedy K, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Split-mouth comparison of the accuracy of computer-generated and conventional surgical guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:563-72.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Noharet R, Pettersson A, Bourgeois D. Accuracy of implant placement in the posterior maxilla as related to 2 types of surgical guides: A pilot study in the human cadaver. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:526-32.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lal K, White GS, Morea DN, Wright RF. Use of stereolithographic templates for surgical and prosthodontic implant planning and placement. Part I. The concept. J Prosthodont 2016;15:51-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Mora MA, Chenin DL, Arce RM. Software tools and surgical guides in dental-implant-guided surgery. Dent Clin North Am 2014;58:597-626.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Wei SM, Zhu Y, Wei JX, Zhang CN, Shi JY, Lai HC. Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32:383-93.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Pellegrino G, Taraschi V, Andrea Z, Ferri A, Marchetti C. Dynamic navigation: A prospective clinical trial to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:139-47.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Block MS, Emery RW. Static or dynamic navigation for implant placement-choosing the method of guidance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74:269-77.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Wu D, Zhou L, Yang J, Zhang B, Lin Y, Chen J, et al. Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guide for dental implant placement. Int J Implant Dent 2020;6:78.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Wang CI, Cho SH, Cho D, Ducote C, Reddy LV, Sinada N. A 3D-printed guide to assist in sinus slot preparation for the optimization of zygomatic implant axis trajectory. J Prosthodont 2020;29:179-84.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Cho SW, Yang BE, Cheon KJ, Jang WS, Kim JW, Byun SH. A simple and safe approach for maxillary sinus augmentation with the advanced surgical guide. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:3785.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Osman AH, Mansour H, Atef M, Hakam M. Computer guided sinus floor elevation through lateral window approach with simultaneous implant placement. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:137-43.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Whitley D 3rd, Eidson RS, Rudek I, Bencharit S. In-office fabrication of dental implant surgical guides using desktop stereolithographic printing and implant treatment planning software: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:256-63.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Kapoor S, Arora P, Kapoor V, Jayachandran M, Tiwari M. Haptics – Touchfeedback technology widening the horizon of medicine. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:294-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Fabrication
Static Navigation
Dynamic Navigation
Recent Advancements
Conclusion
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed132    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal