Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

Accuracy of Navigation-Guided Dental Implant Placement

with Screw Versus Hand Template Fixation


in the Edentulous Mandible
Philipp Kauffmann, MD, DMD1/Anna Rau, MD2/Wilfried Engelke, MD, DMD, PhD3/
Markus Troeltzsch, MD, DMD1/Phillip Brockmeyer, MD, DMD1/
Lauer-Saridakis Dagmar, DMD4/Robert Cordesmeyer, MD, DMD1

Purpose: Preoperative planning of the implant position as part of a coordinated prosthetic and surgical
concept is becoming increasingly important regarding function and esthetics. The aim of this study was to
investigate the transmission accuracy of template fixation during surgery in edentulous arches with hand
fixation in comparison to intermediary screw fixation. Materials and Methods: Preoperatively, 10 implant
positions were planned using computed tomography (CT) with the system med3D for implant placement
in four mandible models of the Goettingen study model, using a prosthetic diagnostic template. A total of
40 implant insertions were created. For every 20 insertions, the template was temporarily fixed with three
screws and compared with the insertion using a hand-fixed template. The precision of the transmission
was evaluated with and without screw fixation by re-evaluating the preimplant planning with additional CT
scanning of the respective models. Results: Compared with the hand-fixed procedure (HFG) in the model
situation, there were no significant differences between the deviations of planned and final implant position
in the screw-fixed group (FG). According to the study results, the fixed procedure leads to less depth deviation
and lateral error of the implant base in relation to the HFG. Within both groups, there were significant
differences between the radial deviation tendencies from the implant base to the implant apex (P = .033 for
FG and P = .001 for HFG). Conclusion: The use of CT-based implant planning succeeds in fixed and hand-
fixed surgical procedures with high precision in the atrophic, edentulous mandible model. According to the
results of this study, in cases demanding high depth precision, screw-fixation of the template can be helpful.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:383–388. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5784

Keywords: dental implants, navigation-guided dental implant, template fixation

In the last decades, the use of dental implants has


been established in daily practice, leading to increas-
ing demands in esthetics and function.1,2 Therefore,
judged solely by bone quality, but also by the planned
prosthetic restoration and its best functional and es-
thetic results.3,4 Therefore, a detailed, combined pre-
complex cases in the implant supply have become operative planning and prosthetic-surgical concept
an ever-increasing challenge for the implantologist.1 seems to take on increasing value. In this respect,
The optimal implant placement will no longer be three-dimensional (3D) imaging has been proven to be
extremely helpful.1–3,5–8 The use of implant planning
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, software, individually milled surgical guides, and com-
Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany. puter-assisted surgery have been established in pre-
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Georg
operative planning.1,5,7,9–14 However, the transfer of 3D
August University, Göttingen, Germany. data to the surgical situation remains challenging.15,16
3 Professor, Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Georg August
Custom-made drilling templates provide a way to ad-
University, Göttingen, Germany.
4Researcher, Dental Practice, Braunschweig, Germany. vance the transfer of the virtually planned implant po-
sition to the operation area. The transmission accuracy
Correspondence to: Dr Philipp Kauffmann, Robert-Koch-Strasse is also a critical aspect of these systems. The aim of this
40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany. Fax: 0049(0)551-398312. study was to determine the transmission accuracy of
Email: philipp.kauffmann@med.uni-goettingen.de
surgical guides in edentulous arches with hand fixation
©2018 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc. and surgical guides with intermediary screw fixation.

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 383

© 2018 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Kauffmann et al

Fig 1  Matching library program. (a, b)


2D–3D reconstruction. (c, d) Axial view. (e,
f) Sagittal view. (a, c, e) Inverse planning by
superposing the radiopaque implants in the
post CT scan (blue scheme), (b, d, f) including
the implant position in the preplanning CT
scan (orange scheme).

a b

Fig 2  (Below) Illustration of measured de-


viations. (a) Radial deviation in the x-, y-axis
(dashed lines) corresponds to the lateral er-
ror of the implant base and implant apex.
(b) Depth deviation in the z-axis (dashed line)
corresponds to the depth error. (c) Angular
c d deviation corresponds to the angle between
the two thick red lines.

Implant base
∆xy

Implant apex
∆z
e f
a b c

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To simulate an authentic situation for edentulous patients, Subsequently, the planned implant position was
four edentulous mandible models (GOS Mandibula Type transferred from CT Image 1:1 onto the template. For
1; patent nr: EP0822531 A1) from Goettingen Surgical Sim- the mechanical positioning, the Hexapod X1med3D
ulation Systems were used.17 The GOS Mandibula Type 1 (Georg Schick Dental) was used. The fixation of the drill-
model is supplied as a slightly atrophic mandible. The ing template on the edentulous alveolar ridge was cre-
model is produced as standard with the bone quality D II. ated through the use of osteosynthesis screws (9 mm
These jaw models properly replicate the anatomical in length and 1.5 mm in diameter) by 3-point fixation
structures as compact and cancellous bone. A mucosa on the facial aspect of the mandible near the depth of
mask represents the resilient mucosa.17 Ten titanium the vestibule in the locations of the left and right first
screw implants (L10 mm, Ø 3.75 mm) made by Bego molar and the right central incisor area. In the control
Semados S (Bego) were inserted. A total of 40 implants group, the template was fixed by hand during surgery.
were placed in four models. The digital planning of The osteotomy to insert the implants was made ac-
the implant position was carried out with the program cording to the following drilling protocol:
Implant3D (Implant3D). The models were scanned by
computed tomography (CT) (Aquilion, Toshiba), which • First drilling: Pilot Drill Ø 1.6 mm, length 24 mm
is equipped with a 512 × 12-pixel matrix and a special • Dilatation drilling: TriSpade Ø 2.5 mm, length 20 mm
scan protocol for dental implants. A spiral scan of 0.5-mm • Final drilling for implants S 3.75: TriSpade Ø 3.25 mm,
slice thickness was conducted for ultra-high-resolution length 20 mm
images with a voxel size of 0.033 mm. • Tappers, ratchet for implants S 3.75

384 Volume 33, Number 2, 2018

© 2018 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Kauffmann et al

Table 1   Depth, Lateral Error, and Angular Deviation Between Planned and Final Implant
Position
P value
Median Range (Mann-Whitney U test)
Depth error (mm)
Implant base
  FG (n = 20) 0.44 0.03–1.54 .53
  HFG (n = 20) 0.52 0.06–1.69
Lateral error (mm)
Implant base
  FG (n = 20) 0.47 0.05–1.31 .47
  HFG (n = 20) 0.49 0.10–1.11
Implant apex
  FG (n = 20) 0.86 0.21–1.68 .85
  HFG (n = 20) 0.77 0.16–1.86
Angular deviation (in degrees)
  FG (n = 20) 3.41 0.48–5.79 .53
  HFG (n = 20) 2.76 0.32–7.54
Data are given as median and range (minimum–maximum).
FG = screw-fixed template group; HFG = hand-fixed template group.

The implantation was carried out with a Bego drill- implant apex deviation in the x-, y-axis within the FG
ing set. A torque wrench with a defined torque (30 and the HFG. A P value < .05 was determined for statis-
Ncm) was applied in all 40 implants. tical significance. Statistica 8.0 software (Statsoft) and
After implantation, the differences between the GraphPad Prism 5 Software (GraphPad Software) were
planned and postoperative implant positions were used.
evaluated with the help of the matching library pro-
gram developed by the company, med3D (Fig 1). The
absolute differences were calculated for the implant RESULTS
base and the implant apex. According to those mea-
suring points, three deviations could be defined as fol- The main results of depth and lateral error as well as
lows: (1) the depth error at the implant base as depth the angular deviation for implant base and apex posi-
deviation in the z-axis; (2) the lateral error at the im- tions are shown in Table 1.
plant base and at the implant apex as radial deviation The median implant base depth error difference be-
in the x-, y-axis; and (3) the angular deviation (Fig 2). tween the FG and the HFG was 0.08 mm and without
statistical significance (Fig 3). The median lateral error
Statistics differed slightly more, but the difference was not sta-
Data were not normally distributed. Data are given as tistically significant in the implant apex measurements
median (range; minimum–maximum). By using stan- compared with the implant base measurements (Fig 4).
dardized models, it can be assumed that the model The angular deviation was lower in the HFG without
itself does not affect the accuracy at all. That is why statistical significance (Fig 5).
the placement of 10 implants in each of the four Within the FG and HFG were significant differences
models was considered as independent samples. The between the relation of radial implant base deviation to
Mann-Whitney U test was performed for comparison radial implant apex deviation. The significance was stron-
of the absolute differences of depth and lateral error ger for the HFG (P = .033 for FG and P = .001 for HFG).
as well as the angular deviation between the planned Over all 40 implants, the median depth error was
and final implant positions for the screw-fixed group 0.45 (0.04 to 1.68) mm, the median lateral error for the
(FG) and the hand-fixed group (HFG). The Wilcoxon implant base was 0.48 (0.06 to 1.31) mm, and 0.82 (0.17
matched paired test was performed for comparison of to 1.86) mm for the implant apex. The median angular
the relation of radial implant base deviation to radial deviation was 3.1 (0.32 to 7.54) degrees.

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 385

© 2018 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Kauffmann et al

Depth error
DISCUSSION
2.0

In this model study, the depth, lateral, and angular


1.5
deviations between the planned and final implant po-
Deviation (mm)

sition showed no significant difference between a tem-


1.0 plate fixation with screws in comparison with a fixation
by hand. The template fixation by hand was related to
0.5 a significantly stronger radial deviation tendency from
the implant base to the implant apex compared with
0 the temporary template fixation with screws.
FG HFG
Implant base
All results should be interpreted with caution be-
cause of the limited sample size of 20 implants for each
Fig 3   Depth error (depth deviation in the z-axis) between the group, whereby Tahmaseb et al showed in a systematic
planned and final implant base position of the screw-fixed group review comparable or even much lower sample sizes in
(FG) and hand-fixed group (HFG). Data are given as median and
range. Deviation between planned and final implant base posi- model studies of computer technology applications in
tion is given in mm. surgical implant dentistry.18
The precision of the image-guided procedure is de-
fined as the deviation in localization and the angular
2.0 Lateral error deviation of the planning, compared with the imple-
mented result, and includes all possible individual er-
1.5 rors, from the image data extraction to implantation
Deviation (mm)

itself. The errors are cumulative and interactive.9


1.0 The overall accuracy of the present study is the sum
obtained from the following: the determined inher-
0.5 ent errors of CT of 0.63 mm, the image resolution of
0.26 mm, and the template production of 0.1 mm. The
0
software can be disregarded. The determined value of
FG HFG FG HFG 0.99 mm is consistent with previous studies.19,20
Implant base Implant apex The estimated deviations of the present work corre-
spond to the common literature and confirm the preci-
Fig 4   Lateral error (radial deviation in the x-, y-axis) between
the planned and final implant base position (left two boxplots) sion of drilling templates described by other working
and implant base apex position (right two boxplots) of the screw- groups.20 Tahmaseb et al reported in a systematic re-
fixed group (FG) and hand-fixed group (HFG). Data are given as view an overall accuracy between the planned and ac-
median and range. Deviation between planned and final implant
base and apex position is given in mm, respectively. tual positions of 1.12 mm in the horizontal deviation at
the entry point in 1,530 implants.18 For the mean apex
deviation of 1,465 implants, 1.39 mm was calculated,
and 3.89 degrees was calculated for the angular devia-
8 Angular deviation
tion of 1,854 implants.18 Furthermore, in the Tahmaseb
review, the data for model studies were reported sepa-
Deviation (degrees)

6 rately. In 74 implants, the lowest and the highest mean


base deviations were 0.025 and 1.38 mm, the lowest
4 and highest mean deviations at the implant apex were
0.34 and 1.39 mm, and the lowest and highest reported
2 mean angular deviations were 0.7 and 2.16 degrees, re-
spectively.18 Apart from the angular deviations of the
0 present study, which were higher only compared with
FG HFG the reported model studies, not for all reported studies
in the quoted review paper, the resulting average accu-
Fig 5   Angular deviation between the planned and final implant racy of this study was in accordance with the transmis-
position of the screw-fixed group (FG) and hand-fixed group
(HFG). Data are given as median and range. Deviation between
sion accuracy of previous studies.18,20
planned and final implant position is given in degrees. Several groups already have investigated the
accuracy of the computerized production of tem-
plates.5,20–25 The precision accuracy in the range of 0.5
to 1 mm emphasizes the reliability of template systems
for the clinical application of implants.20,25,26 Widmann

386 Volume 33, Number 2, 2018

© 2018 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Kauffmann et al

and Bale postulate that human error may affect the drill in the depth in the group with the screw-fixed
image data acquisition, planning, and transfer phases. template. Consequently, in cases demanding a high
The positioning of the registration markers, the mo- depth precision in order to avoid, for instance, nerve
tion-free CT data acquisition, the precise planning, the damage in the mandible, the fixation of the drilling
verification of the registration accuracy, and the con- template could lead to better implant results. Another
tinuous control of the stable and secure fit of the tem- aspect where a template fixation for the aforemen-
plate or the reference frame are essential.9 tioned reason could be useful is in situations where
Ruppin et al stated that the evaluation of the im- different and even low bone qualities can lead to dif-
plants, predrilled osteotomies, and evaluation of the ficulties in controlling depth drilling.
method itself should be considered for the interpreta- The secure anchoring of the template to existing
tion of results.27 In the present study, no difference in the dentition or the bone has to be considered as an ad-
fixation methods could be detected. However, it can be vantage. Currently, osteosynthesis or interim implants
assumed that an even more realistic simulation model are available. Without the use of these, the overall sys-
can provide the advantages of a fixed template variant, tem inaccuracies in clinical use, in an edentulous arch,
based on implantation accuracy. Although the anatomi- are classified as significantly larger.4,9,25,31 Tardieu et al
cal bone structures and the resilient mucosa are repro- showed a clinical case for the supply of the mandible
duced exactly,17 it remains a phantom study where it is using a stereolithographic surgical template. After
not possible to consider individual anatomical criteria preparation of the mucosa, the template was fixed with
such as salivation, the soft tissue situation, or the mobile bone screws directly on the exposed bone to avoid
tongue. The perfect template fixation within a patient’s slipping during drilling.30 In the case of inadequate
mouth will be more difficult than in the present study. bone anatomy, the CT scan should be used to plan
Widmann et al showed that a three-point fixation ahead for the most ideal location for template fixation
in an edentulous human cadaver might provide simi- with bone screws. Unnecessary weakening of the bone
lar accuracy as reported for tooth-supported surgical near the implant site or the impediment of the implan-
templates.28 Even though fixation on existing teeth tation procedure by unfavorable positioning of the
is sufficient, the question of fixing the surgical tem- auxiliary implant can be avoided. It is well-known that
plate with miniscrews on an edentulous arch is still the temporary auxiliary bone screws frequently block
largely unanswered.29 Because of precision errors in implant positions for the definitive implant placement.
the edentulous arch, earlier studies recommended In particular, in highly atrophied and edentulous arch-
the fixation of the template with bone screws.9,30 Sys- es, there is only limited alveolar residual ridge volume,
tematic studies on template mobility, the temporary which must be used in its entirety for the implant po-
insertion of miniscrews and success rates, depend- sitioning. Additional provisional implants often have
ing on the implantation of the fixation mode, are still no space. A palatal or vestibular fixation should be pre-
missing. Widmann and Bale recommend attaching ferred because it allows the implant capable jaw ridge
the template with miniscrews to the dental arch to to be untouched. A classification of the anchor points
avoid the risk of unnoticed loosening of the modified in indications with essential template fixation needs
template. For the adequate use of the drilling tem- to be postulated. Further in vivo studies are needed to
plate for edentulous patients or in the distal free-end, make a decision in anatomically difficult situations.
it is necessary to fix the template with bone screws.9
Widmann and Bale compare the static and dynamic
methods and report differences up to 0.5 mm in drill CONCLUSIONS
navigation and up to 0.4 mm in the template tech-
nique, in a comparison between the patient case and The comparison between the screw-fixed and hand-
the model situation. These values are also reflected in fixed approaches in the Goettingen study model of
recent studies.20 If the drilling side of the template is the lightly atrophic edentulous mandible showed no
fixed by hand, it can affect the opposite side of the significant differences in this study. The results of this
template, like unnoticed lifting. In cases where im- study indicate that in cases demanding a high depth
plants are planned in the molar region, the template precision in order to avoid, for instance, nerve damage
is usually held in the front, which can lead to the lift- in the mandible, the screw fixation of the drilling tem-
ing of the distal portion. This is difficult to observe and plate can be helpful for better implant results.
verify and may lead to an incorrect positioning of the
implant. In the present study, the relation of radial im-
plant base error to radial implant apex error was more ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
significantly different in the hand-fixed group than in
the fixed group. That indicates a better control of the The authors reported no conflicts of interest related to this study.

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 387

© 2018 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Kauffmann et al

REFERENCES 18. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer


technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: A systematic
review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(suppl):s25–s42.
1. Jabero M, Sarment DP. Advanced surgical guidance technology: A 19. Yatzkair G, Cheng A, Brodie S, Raviv E, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Accu-
review. Implant Dent 2006;15:135–142. racy of computer-guided implantation in a human cadaver model.
2. Brief J, Edinger D, Hassfeld S, Eggers G. Accuracy of image-guided Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1143–1149.
implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:495–501. 20. Block MS, Emery RW. Static or dynamic navigation for implant
3. Almog DM, Torrado E, Meitner SW. Fabrication of imaging and sur- placement—Choosing the method of guidance. J Oral Maxillofac
gical guides for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:504–508. Surg 2016;74:269–277.
4. Ganz SD. Presurgical planning with CT-derived fabrication of surgi- 21. Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant place-
cal guides. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63(suppl):s59–s71. ment with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac
5. Besimo CE, Lambrecht JT, Guindy JS. Accuracy of implant treat- Implants 2003;18:571–577.
ment planning utilizing template-guided reformatted computed 22. van Steenberghe D, Naert I, Andersson M, Brajnovic I, Van Cleynen-
tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000;29:46–51. breugel J, Suetens P. A custom template and definitive prosthesis
6. Chiu WK, Luk WK, Cheung LK. Three-dimensional accuracy of allowing immediate implant loading in the maxilla: A clinical
implant placement in a computer-assisted navigation system. Int J report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:663–670.
Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:465–470. 23. Rosenfeld AL, Mandelaris GA, Tardieu PB. Prosthetically directed
7. Gaggl A, Schultes G, Kärcher H. Navigational precision of drilling implant placement using computer software to ensure precise
tools preventing damage to the mandibular canal. J Craniomaxil- placement and predictable prosthetic outcomes. Part 3: Stereo-
lofac Surg 2001;29:271–275. lithographic drilling guides that do not require bone exposure
8. Scherer MD, Kattadiyil MT, Parciak E, Puri S. CAD/CAM guided and the immediate delivery of teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative
surgery in implant dentistry. A review of software packages and Dent 2006;26:493–499.
step-by-step protocols for planning surgical guides. Alpha Ome- 24. Naitoh M, Ariji E, Okumura S, Ohsaki C, Kurita K, Ishigami T. Can
gan 2014;107:32–38. implants be correctly angulated based on surgical templates
9. Widmann G, Bale RJ. Accuracy in computer-aided implant used for osseointegrated dental implants? Clin Oral Implants Res
surgery—A review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:305–313. 2000;11:409–414.
10. Meyer U, Wiesmann HP, Runte C, et al. Evaluation of accuracy 25. Gillot L, Cannas B, Friberg B, Vrielinck L, Rohner D, Pettersson A. Ac-
of insertion of dental implants and prosthetic treatment by curacy of virtually planned and conventionally placed implants in
computer-aided navigation in minipigs. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg edentulous cadaver maxillae and mandibles: A preliminary report.
2003;41:102–108. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:798–804.
11. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P, van Steenberghe 26. Sarment DP, Al-Shammari K, Kazor CE. Stereolithographic surgical
D. Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral templates for placement of dental implants in complex cases. Int J
implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:105–111. Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:287–295.
12. Heurich T, Brief J, Hassfeld S. Perfektion der Implantologie durch 27. Ruppin J, Popovic A, Strauss M, Spüntrup E, Steiner A, Stoll C. Eval-
computerunterstützte implantatplanung und deren operative um- uation of the accuracy of three different computer-aided surgery
setzung—Möglichkeiten und grenzen. Implantologie 2003;11:9–26. systems in dental implantology: Optical tracking vs. stereolitho-
13. Gulati M, Anand V, Salaria SK, Jain N, Gupta S. Computerized graphic splint systems. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:709–716.
implant-dentistry: Advances toward automation. J Indian Soc 28. Widmann G, Zangerl A, Keiler M, Stoffner R, Bale R, Puelacher
Periodontol 2015;19:5–10. W. Flapless implant surgery in the edentulous jaw based on
14. Engelke W, Capobianco M. Flapless sinus floor augmentation using three fixed intraoral reference points and image-guided surgical
endoscopy combined with CT scan-designed surgical templates: templates: Accuracy in human cadavers. Clin Oral Implants Res
Method and report of 6 consecutive cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac 2010;21:835–841.
Implants 2005;20:891–897. 29. Hassfeld S, Brief J, Stein W, et al. Navigationsverfahren in der im-
15. Miller RJ, Bier J. Surgical navigation in oral implantology. Implant plantologie—Stand der technik und perspektiven. Implantologie
Dent 2006;15:41–47. 2000;4:373–390.
16. Schultes G, Gaggl A, Feichtlinger M, Kärcher H. Die Implantation im 30. Tardieu PB, Vrielinck L, Escolano E. Computer-assisted implant
Unterkieferseitenzahnbereich unter CT-gestützter Navigation zur placement. A case report: Treatment of the mandible. Int J Oral
Vermeidung von Verletzungen des Nervus alveolaris inferior—Ein- Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:599–604.
Fallbericht. Implantologie 2001;9:177–185. 31. Heurich T, Brief J, Wörtche R, Marmulla R, Hassfeld S. Computer-
17. Bohne T. Phantom for simulating surgical interventions on bone. gestützte Implantologie—Anwenderbericht über das System
Google Patents patentnr. EP0822531 A1 implant3D. Quintessenz 2002;54:867–873.

388 Volume 33, Number 2, 2018

© 2018 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.