Author:
González Menéndez Héctor,Lorrio Castro Juan,Rodríguez Torres Paulina,de la Vega Buró Susana,Zubizarreta-Macho Álvaro,Riad Deglow Elena,Lobo Galindo Ana Belén,Hernández Montero Sofía
Abstract
AbstractThe aim of the present study was to analyze and compare the angle deviation of two, four and six adjacent dental implants placed with and without straight parallel pins. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and forty (240) dental implants were selected and randomly allocated into the following study groups: Two dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (Ref.: 144-100, BioHorizons, Birmingham, AL, USA) (n = 10) (2PP); Two dental implants placed without parallel pins (n = 10) (2withoutPP); Four dental implants placed with straight parallel pins hT(n = 10) (4PP); Four dental implants placed without parallel pins (n = 10) (4withoutPP); Six dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (n = 10) (6PP) and Six dental implants placed without parallel pins (n = 10) (6withoutPP). The dental implants randomly assigned to groups 2PP and 2withoutPP were placed into standardized polyurethane models of partially edentulous upper jaws in tooth positions 2.4 and 2.6, the dental implants randomly assigned to groups 4PP and 4withoutPP were placed into standardized polyurethane models of fully edentulous upper jaws in tooth positions 1.6, 1.4, 2.4 and 2.6, and the dental implants randomly assigned to groups 6PP and 6withoutPP were placed into standardized polyurethane models of fully edentulous upper jaws in tooth positions 1.6, 1.4, 1.2, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. Afterwards, postoperative CBCT scans and digital impressions were aligned in a 3D implant-planning software to compare the angle deviation (°) of two, four and six adjacent dental implants placed with and without straight parallel pins using the General Linear Model statistical analysis. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the angle deviation of 2 dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (p < 0.0001) and between the angle deviation of 4 dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (p = 0.0024); however, no statistically significant differences were found in the angle deviation of 6 dental implants placed with straight parallel pins (p = 0.9967). Conclusion: The use of a straight parallelization pin results in lower angle deviation between two and four adjacent dental implants; however, it is not effective for a larger number of dental implants.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference35 articles.
1. Nunes DB, da Silva P, Pereira-Cenci T, Garbin CA, Schuh C, Boscato N. Correction of nonparallel implants for an implant-retained overdenture. Gen Dent. 2010;58(4):e168–71.
2. Dario LJ. A maxillary implant overdenture that utilizes angle-correcting abutments. J Prosthodont. 2002;11(1):41–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.2002.00041.x.
3. Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;16:416–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13346.
4. Stefanelli LV, DeGroot BS, Lipton DI, Mandelaris GA. Accuracy of a dynamic dental implant navigation system in a private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:205–13. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6966.
5. Mayer Y, Machtei EE. Divergence correction associated with implant placement: a radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(6):1033–9.