The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) is fundamental for predictable clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of different guide-support modalities on the linear and angular accuracy of implant placement. In this retrospective clinical investigation conducted at a single specialty hospital, a total of 180 implants were analyzed, divided into three equal groups (n = 60) based on the guide support type: tooth-supported, bone-supported, and mucosa-supported. Accuracy was assessed by superimposing preoperative virtual plans with postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, measuring linear deviations at the neck and apex of the implant, as well as angular discrepancies. The type of guide support was found to be a significant factor associated with surgical accuracy (p < 0.001). Tooth-supported guides demonstrated the highest level of accuracy, with a mean angular deviation of 1.81° ± 0.45° and linear deviations at the neck and apex of 0.59 ± 0.18 mm and 0.73 ± 0.19 mm, respectively. These were followed by bone-supported guides (2.14° ± 0.48°; 1.04 ± 0.26 mm; 1.61 ± 0.31 mm), while mucosa-supported guides exhibited the greatest deviations (2.95° ± 0.60°; 1.47 ± 0.29 mm; 1.87 ± 0.37 mm). Significant intergroup differences and large effect sizes were observed, particularly regarding angular and horizontal discrepancies. These findings demonstrate a distinct gradient of accuracy based on guide support, establishing tooth-supported guides as the most accurate, followed by bone-supported and, lastly, mucosa-supported guides. While all modalities are clinically applicable, the use of mucosa-supported guides necessitates increased safety margins to account for the increased risk of linear and angular discrepancies inherent to mucosal tissue displacement.
SMOJVER et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: