Purpose: The study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the NobelGuide™ (Medicim/Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) concept maximally reducing the influence of clinical and surgical parameters. Moreover, the study was to compare and validate two validation procedures versus a reference method. Material and Methods: Overall, 60 implants were placed in 10 artificial edentulous mandibles according to the NobelGuide™ protocol. For merging the pre- and postoperative DICOM data sets, three different fusion methods (Triple Scan Technique, NobelGuide™ Validation software, and AMIRA® software [VSG - Visualization Sciences Group, Burlington, MA, USA] as reference) were applied. Discrepancies between the virtual and the actual implant positions were measured. Results: The mean deviations measured with AMIRA® were 0.49mm (implant shoulder), 0.69mm (implant apex), and 1.98°mm (implant axis). The Triple Scan Technique as well as the NobelGuide™ Validation software revealed similar deviations compared with the reference method. A significant correlation between angular and apical deviations was seen (r=0.53; p<.001). A greater implant diameter was associated with greater deviations (p=03). Conclusion: The Triple Scan Technique as a system-independent validation procedure as well as the NobelGuide™ Validation software are in accordance with the AMIRA® software. The NobelGuide™ system showed similar or less spatial and angular deviations compared with others.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Oral Surgery