Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
An in vitro accuracy study on scan body-assisted surface based registration for conventional and zygomatic dental implants
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
An in vitro accuracy study on scan body-assisted surface based registration for conventional and zygomatic dental implants
Do you wish to request the book?
An in vitro accuracy study on scan body-assisted surface based registration for conventional and zygomatic dental implants
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
An in vitro accuracy study on scan body-assisted surface based registration for conventional and zygomatic dental implants
2025
Overview
There are various techniques to measure accuracy of dental implant surgery, but limited data validating the techniques used to analyze accuracy. Scan-body-assisted surface-based registration (SB-SBR) is deemed theoretically accurate, but with challenges in testing accuracy. The purpose of the study was to analyze the accuracy of SB-SBR for conventional (CVI) and zygomatic implants (ZI) using 2 complementary techniques. An in-vitro study was designed using a 3D-printed model of an edentulous maxilla with CVI and ZI digitally planned and placed. SB-SBR was performed on the physical model and on a model-free virtual setting, and the implant position was compared with those of the planned implants 10 times. Outcome variables were angular and linear errors (AE and LE), with thresholds of 1° and 1 mm. Paired t-test and Wilcoxson signed-ranked test were used. Results showed greater AE for ZI versus CVI (mean difference, MD 0.42°). Apical LE was greater for ZI (MD 0.68 mm), while CVI exhibited greater platform LE (MD 0.69 mm). Overall AE remained under 1°, but the apical LE of ZI exceeded 1 mm, which could potentially lead to violation of critical structures when combined with surgical error, highlighting the need for caution when interpreting data derived from SB-SBR especially for ZI.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
