CBCT device dependency on the transfer accuracy from computer-aided implantology procedures

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research 2012-09, Vol.23 (9), p.1089-1097
• Main Authors: Dreiseidler, Timo, Tandon, Daniel, Kreppel, Matthias, Neugebauer, Jörg, Mischkowski, Robert A., Zinser, Max J., Zöller, Joachim E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Computed tomography; Computer-Aided Design; computer-aided implantology; computer-aided surgery; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Models; Dentistry; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - diagnostic imaging; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - surgery; metric accuracy; Patient Care Planning; Software; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation; transfer accuracy
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02272.x

Objectives To evaluate the potential influence of different cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices on the transfer accuracy of an open‐source system for computer‐aided implantology (CAI). Material and methods A total of 108 implants in 18 partially edentulous patient‐equivalent models were planned and fully guided implants were inserted using an open‐source CAI system with three different CBCT devices. After follow‐up CBCT and fiducial marker‐matching procedure, linear horizontal, vertical, and maximal three‐dimensional deviations, as well as angle deviations between the virtual planning data and the surgical results were calculated. Variance analysis was carried out to prove whether or not the observed differences between the CBCT devices were statistically significant. Results The observed mean three‐dimensional deviation rates between virtually planned and achieved implant positions varied by around 400 μm (45%) at the implant's base and around 540 μm (50%) at the implant's tip in dependence to the applied CBCT device. Mean vertical deviations varied around 370 μm (76%) at the implant's base and 350 μm (69%) at the implant's tip, whereas axes deviations varied around 0.81° (40%) between the three investigated CBCT devices. Except for the axes deviations and the horizontal linear deviations at the implants base, observed differences reached significance level between the CBCT devices. Conclusions Until now, the potential influence from different CBCT devices on the transfer accuracy of CAI systems has not yet been investigated. Data from the present study confirm for the first time the in vitro CBCT device dependency on the transfer accuracy of CAI systems reaching up to axes deviations of 0.6 angle degree and linear deviations around half a millimeter.