Comparison of guided and non-guided implant placement accuracy (Part 2)
Fig. 1: Example of deviation maps set for FH01. The pink colour indicates areas where the deviations exceeded the tolerance level established for the particular map;
the remaining colours indicate areas within the accepted range.
Fig. 2: An example of the area where the established tolerance level for implant FH01l was exceeded, with some point deviations marked.
Fig. 3: The placement of measuring points on implants WG01rm and WG01rd. The grey test model with implants was superimposed upon the reference model and deviation levels marked.
Fig. 4: Deviation levels for particular implants set with maximum point deviations. Implant naming: WG/FH, sample number, l/r, m/d (FH = freehand; WG = with guide; l = left; r = right; m = mesial; d = distal).
Fig. 5: Absolute deviation values for implants in the areas of fixed measuring points on the inserts. Implant naming: WG/FH, sample number, l/r, m/d (FH = freehand; WG = with guide; l = left; r = right; m = mesial; d = distal).
Fig. 6: Implant WG02l, buccal view. The figure shows two superimposed models. The green model is one with implants and the purple model one with inserts. The figure shows that the implant is displaced in relation to the insert, but their axes are approximately parallel to each other.
Fig. 7: Implants FH01rm and FH01rd, lingual view. The figure shows two superimposed models. The green model is one with implants and the purple model one with inserts. It can be easily observed that, despite the small spatial displacement of the implant relative to the insert, their axes are convergent.
Other photo galleries you may be interested in:
November 14, 2016
CEREC Zirconia live
Der Deutsche Zahnärztetag 2016 lockte am 11. und 12. November nicht nur viele Zahnmediziner nach Frankfurt am Main, sondern auch zahlreiche Vertreter der Fachpresse. Letzteren wurde vor Ort durch Dent…