Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Accurate implant placement in edentulous patients remains a clinical challenge, particularly when using mucosa-supported guides, which are prone to positional errors.</p> Aims <p>To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using the Fixed Edentulous Implant Guide (FEIG), a screw-retained guide system, compared with a conventional mucosa-supported guide in an edentulous mandible model.</p> Materials and methods <p>Ten anatomical mandibular models with simulated mucosa and bone were used. Forty dummy implants were placed using either the FEIG system or a conventional guide. Implant positions were virtually planned, and deviations were assessed by comparing the planned and actual positions using STL-based alignment and a custom measurement algorithm.</p> Results <p>The FEIG system demonstrated significantly lower mean deviations at the coronal (0.45 ± 0.15 mm) and apical (0.28 ± 0.13 mm) levels compared with the conventional guide (1.22 ± 0.61 mm and 0.89 ± 0.39 mm, respectively; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Angular deviation was lower for the FEIG (1.99° ± 0.98) but not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.081).</p> Conclusions <p>The FEIG method significantly improved the accuracy of implant placement in vitro compared to a conventional edentulous guide. Further in vivo studies are warranted to confirm its clinical applicability.</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

An in vitro study of the fixed edentulous implant guide using a novel approach to edentulous guided surgery using a developed two part screw

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月9日

查看全文
  • Adam B. Nulty

摘要

Introduction

Accurate implant placement in edentulous patients remains a clinical challenge, particularly when using mucosa-supported guides, which are prone to positional errors.

Aims

To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using the Fixed Edentulous Implant Guide (FEIG), a screw-retained guide system, compared with a conventional mucosa-supported guide in an edentulous mandible model.

Materials and methods

Ten anatomical mandibular models with simulated mucosa and bone were used. Forty dummy implants were placed using either the FEIG system or a conventional guide. Implant positions were virtually planned, and deviations were assessed by comparing the planned and actual positions using STL-based alignment and a custom measurement algorithm.

Results

The FEIG system demonstrated significantly lower mean deviations at the coronal (0.45 ± 0.15 mm) and apical (0.28 ± 0.13 mm) levels compared with the conventional guide (1.22 ± 0.61 mm and 0.89 ± 0.39 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). Angular deviation was lower for the FEIG (1.99° ± 0.98) but not statistically significant (p = 0.081).

Conclusions

The FEIG method significantly improved the accuracy of implant placement in vitro compared to a conventional edentulous guide. Further in vivo studies are warranted to confirm its clinical applicability.