Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 92, Issue 5 , Pages 463-469, November 2004

Effects of varied dimensions of surgical guides on implant angulations

  • Mijin Choi, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Third-year Prosthodontic Resident, Postdoctoral Program in Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry.
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Dr Mijin Choi Department of Restorative Dentistry Baltimore College of Dental Surgery University of Maryland at Baltimore 666 West Baltimore St Baltimore, MD 21201 Fax: (410) 706-3028
  • ,
  • Elaine Romberg, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Professor, Department of Oral Health Care Delivery.
  • ,
  • Carl F. Driscoll, DMD

      Affiliations

    • Associate Professor and Director of Prosthodontic Residency, Department of Restorative Dentistry.

Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of Maryland at Baltimore, Baltimore, Md

Statement of problem

Fabrication of a proper surgical guide is critical for success of implant restorations. The effects of the dimensional factors of the surgical guide on implant placement have not been studied.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of varied dimensions (diameter, length, and distance between the underside of the surgical guide and the implant recipient site) of a surgical guide on the accuracy of implant angulation.

Material and methods

In this in vitro study, 240 implant recipient sites were randomly prepared using varied dimensions of a surgical guide. The varied dimensions of the surgical guide's channel and distance were: channel diameter (2, 3, 4, or 5 mm), channel length (6 or 9 mm), and distance between the underside of the surgical guide and the simulated implant recipient site (2 or 4 mm). From these varying dimensions and distances, 16 combinations of dimensions and distances were tested. For each combination, 15 simulated implant recipient site (SIRS) specimens were prepared. The deviated angulation (DA) from the midpoint of the top surface of the 1- × 1-inch simulated implant recipient site (each simulated implant recipient acrylic block contained 5 SIRS of 1 × 1 inch), in the right-to-left (DARL) and front-to-back (DAFB) directions, were measured in degrees using a protractor. The data was analyzed using factorial analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD test (α=.05).

Results

The DARL, in degrees, at a channel length of 9.0 mm (2.33 ± 1.27) was significantly smaller than at a channel length of 6.0 mm (3.0 ± 1.42, P=.0001). The DARL, in degrees, at a distance of 4.0 mm (2.13 ± 1.16) was significantly smaller than at a distance of 2.0 mm (3.16 ± 1.39, P=.0001). Also, a significant interaction for DARL was found between diameter and distance (P<.05). For DAFB, the varying diameters (P<.05), lengths (P=.0001), and distances (P=.0001) showed significant differences. The DAFB at a channel length of 9.0 mm (2.56 degrees ± 1.51) was significantly smaller than that at 6.0 mm (3.82 degrees ± 1.87). Significant interactions found for DAFB were: diameter by length (P=.0001), diameter by distance (F=4.547, P=.004), and length by distance (F=11.512, P=.001).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest channel length as the primary controlling factor in minimizing deviated angulations.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Presented at the oral presentation program at the 31st Annual Meeting and Exposition of the American Association for Dental Research, San Antonio, Texas, March 14, 2003.Supported by The Greater New York Academy of Prosthodontics Student Grant.

PII: S0022-3913(04)00527-X

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.010

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 92, Issue 5 , Pages 463-469, November 2004