There are numerous software applications for dental implant planning. There are significant differences in the workflow. Is there any study comparing these workflows. Is there any study if there is a difference in the treatment outcome?
Hello Jochen.
I don't know any study comparing the precision of different systems. The workflow though is quite different from company to company, so it kind of depends what you want to do. For example the systems working with printed guides have not been offering bone-supported guides so far. I guess this will change soon. On the other hand you could in theory plan a case and print your surgical guide in your own office in a matter of hours using the appropriate system.
Many systems, many possibilities. It would be interesting to investigate the precision of different systems, as you suggest.
Hi Alexandros, thank you for your answer. There are plenty of studies measuring the precision of io-scanners, since that is as easy as it is important to measure. The exactness of any relevant system on the market is (no longer) of any conercen, IMHO. BUT there are huge differences in the handling and workflow. And these differences matter to me as a clinician.
I think the main difference in precision if present will not be affected by the DICOM file conversion to 3D which is very important. All other factors like prototyping technique used for surgical guide manufacturing, precision of reading the STL file done by the manufacturing software and the precision of the system sleeves and drilling holes discrepancy with the drills will play the major role.
M.Bornstein has completed a systematic r/v on digital planning software and concluded a 2.18+/- mean error. Some food for thought I guess
Thank you all.
Has anybody ever used different software for planning the same case, e. g. CodiagnostX and Smop?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction