Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a guided dental implant system with one operator comparing the treatment planned location to the actual location using a table top optical scanner. Materials and Methods: Twenty five patients were treated with a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. A stone cast was made of each patient and scanned using an optical table top scanner. The optical scan of the cast and the CBCT of the patient were superimposed and a single implant was placed virtually in the software program. A sterolithographic three dimensional (3D) surgical guide was printed. Implant sites in the patients were prepared using the surgical guides and the final drill to complete the osteotomy and implant placement was done without the guide. Four to six months after implant placement, impressions were made for the final restoration. A scanning body was placed in the master cast, and the scanning of these casts was performed with the same scanner. The overlay of the final working cast and the virtual planning was performed. Differences between actual and planned implant locations were calculated in linear measurement in millimeters and degrees from the center of the implant body at the most coronal and most apical point. Results: 25 cases were evaluated. The average linear deviation at the shoulder and apex of the implant was: 0.68 +/-0.55mm p < 0.001, and 1.47mm +/-0.92mm p < 0.001 respectively. The average deviation in height was -0.06mm +/-1.27mm p= .966. The average angular deviation from the axis was 5.8 +/- 2.41 degrees p< 0.001 The deviation in height is statistically different in the maxilla -0.95 +/- 1.28mm compared to the mandible 0.47 +/- 0.95mm p<.002 with an alpha level of 05. Conclusion: The actual location of the implant compared to the planned location is significantly different at the location of the shoulder, apex and angle. It did not differ significantly in height except when evaluated by arch.
","abstract_html":"<p>Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a guided dental implant system with one operator comparing the treatment planned location to the actual location using a table top optical scanner. Materials and Methods: Twenty five patients were treated with a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. A stone cast was made of each patient and scanned using an optical table top scanner. The optical scan of the cast and the CBCT of the patient were superimposed and a single implant was placed virtually in the software program. A sterolithographic three dimensional (3D) surgical guide was printed. Implant sites in the patients were prepared using the surgical guides and the final drill to complete the osteotomy and implant placement was done without the guide. Four to six months after implant placement, impressions were made for the final restoration. A scanning body was placed in the master cast, and the scanning of these casts was performed with the same scanner. The overlay of the final working cast and the virtual planning was performed. Differences between actual and planned implant locations were calculated in linear measurement in millimeters and degrees from the center of the implant body at the most coronal and most apical point. Results: 25 cases were evaluated. The average linear deviation at the shoulder and apex of the implant was: 0.68 +/-0.55mm p < 0.001, and 1.47mm +/-0.92mm p < 0.001 respectively. The average deviation in height was -0.06mm +/-1.27mm p= .966. The average angular deviation from the axis was 5.8 +/- 2.41 degrees p< 0.001 The deviation in height is statistically different in the maxilla -0.95 +/- 1.28mm compared to the mandible 0.47 +/- 0.95mm p<.002 with an alpha level of 05. Conclusion: The actual location of the implant compared to the planned location is significantly different at the location of the shoulder, apex and angle. It did not differ significantly in height except when evaluated by arch.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Livingston, Fallon D."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Science (MS)","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Periodontics","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Sahl, Erik","Kim, Yoon Jeong","Rice, Dwight"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2017,"date_issued":"2017-06-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2017-06-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:52:45Z","subjects":["Dentistry","Medicine and Health Sciences","Periodontics and Periodontology","Periodontics; Dental Implants; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implantation","Guided Dental Implant Delivery System; Implant placement;"],"languages":["English"],"rights":["This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/431","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Sahl, Erik","Kim, Yoon Jeong","Rice, Dwight"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Livingston, Fallon D."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Periodontics"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science (MS)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Dentistry","Medicine and Health Sciences","Periodontics and Periodontology","Periodontics; Dental Implants; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implantation","Guided Dental Implant Delivery System; Implant placement;"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/431"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a guided dental implant system with one operator comparing the treatment planned location to the actual location using a table top optical scanner. Materials and Methods: Twenty five patients were treated with a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. A stone cast was made of each patient and scanned using an optical table top scanner. The optical scan of the cast and the CBCT of the patient were superimposed and a single implant was placed virtually in the software program. A sterolithographic three dimensional (3D) surgical guide was printed. Implant sites in the patients were prepared using the surgical guides and the final drill to complete the osteotomy and implant placement was done without the guide. Four to six months after implant placement, impressions were made for the final restoration. A scanning body was placed in the master cast, and the scanning of these casts was performed with the same scanner. The overlay of the final working cast and the virtual planning was performed. Differences between actual and planned implant locations were calculated in linear measurement in millimeters and degrees from the center of the implant body at the most coronal and most apical point. Results: 25 cases were evaluated. The average linear deviation at the shoulder and apex of the implant was: 0.68 +/-0.55mm p < 0.001, and 1.47mm +/-0.92mm p < 0.001 respectively. The average deviation in height was -0.06mm +/-1.27mm p= .966. The average angular deviation from the axis was 5.8 +/- 2.41 degrees p< 0.001 The deviation in height is statistically different in the maxilla -0.95 +/- 1.28mm compared to the mandible 0.47 +/- 0.95mm p<.002 with an alpha level of 05. Conclusion: The actual location of the implant compared to the planned location is significantly different at the location of the shoulder, apex and angle. It did not differ significantly in height except when evaluated by arch.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Accuracy of a Newly Developed Guided Dental Implant Delivery System"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Sahl, Erik","Kim, Yoon Jeong","Rice, Dwight"],"dc:creator":["Livingston, Fallon D."],"dc:description.abstract":["Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a guided dental implant system with one operator comparing the treatment planned location to the actual location using a table top optical scanner. Materials and Methods: Twenty five patients were treated with a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. A stone cast was made of each patient and scanned using an optical table top scanner. The optical scan of the cast and the CBCT of the patient were superimposed and a single implant was placed virtually in the software program. A sterolithographic three dimensional (3D) surgical guide was printed. Implant sites in the patients were prepared using the surgical guides and the final drill to complete the osteotomy and implant placement was done without the guide. Four to six months after implant placement, impressions were made for the final restoration. A scanning body was placed in the master cast, and the scanning of these casts was performed with the same scanner. The overlay of the final working cast and the virtual planning was performed. Differences between actual and planned implant locations were calculated in linear measurement in millimeters and degrees from the center of the implant body at the most coronal and most apical point. Results: 25 cases were evaluated. The average linear deviation at the shoulder and apex of the implant was: 0.68 +/-0.55mm p < 0.001, and 1.47mm +/-0.92mm p < 0.001 respectively. The average deviation in height was -0.06mm +/-1.27mm p= .966. The average angular deviation from the axis was 5.8 +/- 2.41 degrees p< 0.001 The deviation in height is statistically different in the maxilla -0.95 +/- 1.28mm compared to the mandible 0.47 +/- 0.95mm p<.002 with an alpha level of 05. Conclusion: The actual location of the implant compared to the planned location is significantly different at the location of the shoulder, apex and angle. It did not differ significantly in height except when evaluated by arch.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/431"],"dc:language":["English"],"dc:rights":["This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights."],"dc:subject":["Dentistry","Medicine and Health Sciences","Periodontics and Periodontology","Periodontics; Dental Implants; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implantation","Guided Dental Implant Delivery System; Implant placement;"],"dc:title":["Accuracy of a Newly Developed Guided Dental Implant Delivery System"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Periodontics"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science (MS)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:52:45Z"}