Display options
Cite
Sigcho López DA, Pintaudi Amorim K, Laganá DC. Auxiliary Reflectance Sensor for Guided Surgery with Dental Implants: In Vitro Study. Eur J Dent. 2020;14(1):115-122doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1705074.
Sigcho López, D. A., Pintaudi Amorim, K., & Laganá, D. C. (2020). Auxiliary Reflectance Sensor for Guided Surgery with Dental Implants: In Vitro Study. European journal of dentistry, 14(1), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1705074
Sigcho López, Diego Antonio, et al. "Auxiliary Reflectance Sensor for Guided Surgery with Dental Implants: In Vitro Study." European journal of dentistry vol. 14,1 (2020): 115-122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1705074
Sigcho López DA, Pintaudi Amorim K, Laganá DC. Auxiliary Reflectance Sensor for Guided Surgery with Dental Implants: In Vitro Study. Eur J Dent. 2020 Feb;14(1):115-122. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1705074. Epub 2020 Mar 13. PMID: 32168539; PMCID: PMC7069737.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Eur J Dent. 2020 Feb;14(1):115-122. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1705074. Epub 2020 Mar 13.

Auxiliary Reflectance Sensor for Guided Surgery with Dental Implants: In Vitro Study.

European journal of dentistry

Diego Antonio Sigcho López, Karina Pintaudi Amorim, Dalva Cruz Laganá

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Central University of Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
  2. Faculty of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

PMID: 32168539 PMCID: PMC7069737 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705074

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:  The aim of this research was to develop a sensor of approximation by reflectance for guided surgery with dental implants without flap detachment, and verify the effectiveness of this system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:  Ten models of total edentulous arches were divided into two groups. Two implants of 3.5 × 11.5 mm (NeoDent) were inserted in each model; in Group 1 (G1), a stereolithographic guide

RESULTS:  There were no statistically significant differences between the guide and the sensor groups. The averages and standard deviations observed at the angulation of the guide was 4.15 (2.65 degrees) and 5.48 (2.85 degrees) at the sensor. The linear deviations at the cervical level were 0.002 (1.37) and 0.11 (1.47) mm and at the apical level 0.19 (1.28) and 0.21 (1.42) mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:  The use of a guide is important for the stabilization of the drills; the greatest challenge is to control the apical position of the implants, especially in highly reabsorbed edges. The experimental sensor can become an auxiliary tool to the stereolithographic guides; however, several difficulties must still be overcome to recommend the use of a sensor.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

References

  1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:118-25 - PubMed
  2. Eur J Dent. 2018 Jan-Mar;12(1):153-160 - PubMed
  3. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Sep-Oct;27(5):1199-204 - PubMed
  4. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018 Mar;18(1):28-40 - PubMed
  5. J Periodontol. 2005 Apr;76(4):503-7 - PubMed
  6. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Feb;74(2):269-77 - PubMed
  7. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2018 Mar 31;9(1):e1 - PubMed
  8. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Dec;13(6):610-6 - PubMed
  9. Periodontol 2000. 2019 Oct;81(1):194-208 - PubMed
  10. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Autumn;7(3):229-42 - PubMed
  11. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Apr;43(4):476-86 - PubMed
  12. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Oct;42(7):1530-5 - PubMed
  13. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Nov;26(11):1315-20 - PubMed
  14. Periodontol 2000. 2014 Oct;66(1):228-46 - PubMed
  15. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(4):391-6 - PubMed
  16. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jan;19(1):66-72 - PubMed
  17. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Apr;14(2):293-303 - PubMed
  18. J Periodontol. 2010 Jan;81(1):43-51 - PubMed

Publication Types