Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To evaluate the accuracy of s-CAIS in immediate post-extraction sockets using a cadaver model and to assess whether operator experience influences implant placement precision and surgical time.</p> Methods <p>Twenty teeth (incisors: 9; premolars: 8; molars: 3) were extracted from two fresh defrozen cadaver heads, and implants were planned using a digital workflow integrating cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning. Custom-made tooth-supported surgical guides were fabricated and used by two operators: one expert (&gt; 5 years of experience) and one non-expert (&lt; 5 years of experience), both without prior guided surgery experience. Twenty implants were placed. Post-operative scans were taken and superimposed to the pre-operative plans to measure global head deviation, global tip deviation, and angular deviation. Data were stratified by operator experience, jaw location, and implant position.</p> Results <p>No significant differences were found between expert and non-expert operators in head deviation (1.26 ± 0.51&#xa0;mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.63&#xa0;mm, <i>p</i> = 0.29), tip deviation (1.70 ± 0.50&#xa0;mm vs. 1.81 ± 0.53&#xa0;mm, <i>p</i> = 0.64), angular deviation (3.83 ± 1.90° vs. 3.32 ± 1.69°, <i>p</i> = 0.54), or surgical time (3.60 ± 1.45&#xa0;min vs. 4.31 ± 2.67&#xa0;min, <i>p</i> = 0.84). Anterior implants showed significantly greater head (1.69 ± 0.57&#xa0;mm vs. 1.13 ± 0.46&#xa0;mm, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and tip deviations (1.99 ± 0.41&#xa0;mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.50&#xa0;mm, <i>p</i> = 0.04) compared to posterior implants. Mandibular implants required longer surgical time than maxillary implants (4.90 ± 2.37&#xa0;min vs. 2.87 ± 1.01&#xa0;min, <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p> Conclusion <p>Within the limitations of this cadaver study, s-CAIS demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets, with operator experience not significantly influencing placement precision or surgical time. Static guided surgery may standardize outcomes and support surgical training in implant dentistry.</p> Clinical significance <p>The use of s-CAIS in a cadaver model demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets irrespective of operator experience. Its use might be considered for clinical training sessions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Impact of clinician experience on the accuracy of static guided implant placement in post-extraction sockets: a cadaver study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月25日

查看全文
  • Francesco Pera,
  • Camillo Vocaturo,
  • Veronica Stendardo,
  • Armando Crupi,
  • Marta Bezzi,
  • Umberto Gibello,
  • Andrea Roccuzzo

摘要

Objectives

To evaluate the accuracy of s-CAIS in immediate post-extraction sockets using a cadaver model and to assess whether operator experience influences implant placement precision and surgical time.

Methods

Twenty teeth (incisors: 9; premolars: 8; molars: 3) were extracted from two fresh defrozen cadaver heads, and implants were planned using a digital workflow integrating cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning. Custom-made tooth-supported surgical guides were fabricated and used by two operators: one expert (> 5 years of experience) and one non-expert (< 5 years of experience), both without prior guided surgery experience. Twenty implants were placed. Post-operative scans were taken and superimposed to the pre-operative plans to measure global head deviation, global tip deviation, and angular deviation. Data were stratified by operator experience, jaw location, and implant position.

Results

No significant differences were found between expert and non-expert operators in head deviation (1.26 ± 0.51 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.63 mm, p = 0.29), tip deviation (1.70 ± 0.50 mm vs. 1.81 ± 0.53 mm, p = 0.64), angular deviation (3.83 ± 1.90° vs. 3.32 ± 1.69°, p = 0.54), or surgical time (3.60 ± 1.45 min vs. 4.31 ± 2.67 min, p = 0.84). Anterior implants showed significantly greater head (1.69 ± 0.57 mm vs. 1.13 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.03) and tip deviations (1.99 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.54 ± 0.50 mm, p = 0.04) compared to posterior implants. Mandibular implants required longer surgical time than maxillary implants (4.90 ± 2.37 min vs. 2.87 ± 1.01 min, p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this cadaver study, s-CAIS demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets, with operator experience not significantly influencing placement precision or surgical time. Static guided surgery may standardize outcomes and support surgical training in implant dentistry.

Clinical significance

The use of s-CAIS in a cadaver model demonstrated predictable accuracy for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets irrespective of operator experience. Its use might be considered for clinical training sessions.