Keywords
Dental implants
Cone beam computed tomography
Computed tomography
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the benefits of surgical guides for three-dimensional positioning of implants in the oral cavity and compare 3D guides with conventional ones. Literature review: In particular, 3D guides are created based on clinical examinations, three-dimensional images and software capable of optimizing treatment with dental implants. Furthermore, conventional guides produced from the diagnostic model are still routinely used by implant dentists, also resulting in adequate rehabilitation. This digital flow provided greater agility and predictability in the work process, also facilitating clear and objective communication between the dental surgeon and the professionals working in the laboratory, enabling the manufacturing of the prosthetic part after careful evaluation by the Dental Surgeon. Carrying out this digital work, however, depends primarily on rigorous clinical examination. Anamnesis carried out effectively is a valuable method for understanding the patient's health status. Final considerations: During this review, it was observed that the use of surgical guides in implant dentistry has become a promising tool during the insertion and angulation of the dental implant.
References
AL YAFI F, et al. Is Digital Guided Implant Surgery Accurate and Reliable? Rev Dental Clinics of North America, 2019; 63(3): 381–397.
BAAN F, et al. Fusão de varreduras intra-orais em varreduras de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico. Rev. Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019; 25(2): 77–85.
BORNSTEIN MM, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Rev. Periodontology, 2000; 73(1): 51–72.
BURZYNSKI JA, et al. Comparação de scanners intraorais digitais e impressões de alginato: tempo e satisfação do paciente. Rev. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2018; 153(4): 534–541.
CUNHA RM, et al. Accuracy evaluation of computer-guided implant surgery associated with prototyped surgical guides. Rev Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2021; 125(2): 266–272.
D'HAESE J, et al. O estado da arte atual da cirurgia de implante guiada por computador.” Rev. Periodontol., 2000; 73(1): 121-133.
FLÜGGE T, et al. Registro de dados de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico e varreduras de superfície intraoral - Um pré-requisito para cirurgia de implante guiada com guias de perfuração. Rev Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2017; 28(9): 1113-1118.
FUNG L, et al. Implementando Odontologia Digital em sua prática odontológica estética. Rev. Dental Clinics of North America, 2020; 64(4): 645-657.
GANZ SD. Imagem tridimensional e cirurgia guiada para implantes dentários. Rev. Dent Clin North America, 2015; 59(2): 265-90.
GARGALLO-ALBIOL J, et al. Vantagens e desvantagens da cirurgia de navegação com implantes. Uma revisão sistemática. Rev. Annals of Anatomy, 2019; 225(2): 1–10.
GENG W, et al. Accuracy of different types of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing surgical guides for dental implant placement. Rev. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 2015; 8(6): 8442–8449.
JACOBS R, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: Recommendations for clinical use. Rev. BMC Oral Health, 2018; 18(1): 1–16.
KERNEN F, et al. A review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery - Data import and visualization, drill guide design and manufacturing. Rev BMC Oral Health, 2020; 20(1): 1–10.
KIHARA H, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. Rev. Journal of Prosthodontic Research, 2020; 64(2): 109–113.
LIM Y, et al. A New Method of Measuring the Volumetric Change of Alveolar Bone Around Dental Implants Using Computed Tomography. Rev. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2020; 9(4): 1238-1240.
MA B, et al. The accuracy of a 3D printing surgical guide determined by CBCT and model analysis. Rev. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, 2018; 10(4): 279–285.
MANGANO C, et al. Combining intraoral scans, cone beam computed tomography and face scans: The virtual patient. Rev. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 2018; 29(8): 2241–2246.
MARQUES S, et al. Digital impressions in implant dentistry: A literature review. Rev. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021; 18(3): 1–20.
MARTELLI N, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: A systematic review. Rev. Surgery, 2016; 159(6): 1485–1500.
MIJIRITSKY E, et al. Variety of surgical guides and protocols for bone reduction prior to implant placement: A narrative review. Rev International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021; 18(5): 1–16.
MISCH C. Implantes Dentais Contemporâneos. São Paulo: GEN Guanabara Koogan, 2009.
MUKAI S, et al. Assessment of the reproducibility and precision of milling and 3D printing surgical guides. Rev. BMC Oral Health, 2021; 21(1): 1–7.
NIKOYAN L, et al. Intraoral Scanner, Three-Dimensional Imaging, and Three-Dimensional Printing in the Dental Office. Rev. Dental Clinics of North America, 2020; 64(2): 365–378.
PENG Y, et al. A novel conversion method for radiographic guide into surgical guide. Rev Clin Implant Dent Relat Res., 2017; 19(3): 447-457.
PEREIRA RA, et al. Cirurgia guiada em implantodontia: relato de caso. Revista Ciência e Saúde On-line, 2019; 4(1).
REYES A, et al. Accuracy of surgical guides made from conventional and a combination of digital scanning and rapid prototyping techniques. Rev Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2015; 113(4): 295–303.
RICHERT R, et al. Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression. Rev. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2017; 12(1): 9-13.
ROSING CK, et al. The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health Evidence for peri-implant maintenance. Rev. Braz Oral Res., 2019; 33(1): 1–10.
SALOMÃO GVS, et al. Analysis of Digital Workflow in Implantology. Rev. Case Reports in Dentistry, 2021; 4(1): 1–7.
SCHUBERT O, et al. Digital implant planning and guided implant surgery – workflow and reliability. Rev. British Dental Journal, 2019; 226(2): 101–108.
SOUZA KMD, et al. Types of Implant Surgical Guides in Dentistry : A Review. Rev J Oral Implantol., 2012; 38(5): 643-52.
STANLEY M, et al. Fully digital workflow, integrating dental scan, smile design and CAD-CAM: Case report. Rev. BMC Oral Health, 2018; 18(1): 4–11.
TAVELLI L, et al. “Sinus presurgical evaluation: A literature review and a new classification proposal.” Rev. Minerva Stomatologica, 2017; 66(3): 115–131.
UNSAL GS, et al. Advantages and limitations of implant surgery with CAD/CAM surgical guides: A literature review. Rev. Journal of Clinical and Experimental