Accuracy comparison of static cais vs dynamic cais in single space loss at upper anterior region in four types of bone density

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the precision of implant placement in the single space missing of anterior tooth in different circumstances of bone type using static CAIS system (Co-diagnostic system Straumann ®) and dynamic CAIS system (E-PED, I-RIS100). The author hypothesized that the overall accuracy of implant placement using static and dynamic CAIS system among four types of bone are not different.

Methodology: 64 upper models with artificial bone density D1-D4, divided in to 2 main groups of static CAIS group and dynamic CAIS, which each subgroups contain 8 models for individual bone group, were prepared with single space edentulism on tooth no.11.Virtual implant position were planned according to CBCT using co- DiagnostiX™ software and E-PED software. After stereolithographic 32 surgical stents were designed and printed out for static CAIS group and 32 occlusal appliances arch holding with fiducial markers were created and virtual planned had prepared. Single surgeon placed the implant size 3.3x10 mm.(Straumann ®) according to the protocol of the software. Then CBCT were taken again for all the samples after obtaining postoperative CBCT, the DICOM file of samples were superimposed with virtual planned of individual model.

Result :The data from 64 models, 8 models for each bone types, involving 64 implants were evaluated. Each densities type of bone provided no significant role of misalignment in static and dynamic groups of CAIS.The overall mean angular deviation was 0.62±0.31° in static CAIS and 1.30±0.48° in dynamic CAIS, the overall mean total offset at platform deviation was 0.93±0.29 mm in static CAIS and 1.02±0.37 in dynamic CAIS. Besides the overall mean total offset at apex deviation was 0.98±0.31 mm in static CAIS and 1.26±0.47 mm. in dynamic CAIS. The overall angle deviation and total offset at apex deviation of static CAIS group demonstrated statistically significant difference when compared with dynamic CAIS (p<0.05). However overall total offset at platform of static and dynamic CAIS and difference in densities of bone show no significant difference between static and dynamic CAIS (p>0.05).

Conclusion: Using CAIS system for implant placement in single tooth loss showed small deviation from virtual implant planned position among four bone types. The result reflected accuracy and precision can be achieved from CAIS system when placing implant in any density of bone.