Page 55 - Craniomaxillofacial Implant Surgery - Jeroen P.J. Dings

Reliability and accuracy of surgical templates for craniofacial implant placement
Table 1. Distribution of CMF implants per facial region
Anatomical location
Implant lengths
Surgical template
No fixation pins (no. of implants)
9 10 8 9
66
Overall, the use of fixation pins showed statistical significant larger mean deviations at the implant shoulder (P = .0248), angle (P = .0179), and depth (P = .0010) in comparison to non-fixated surgical templates (Table 2). Mean implant deviations with regard to different anatomical locations are shown in Table 3. Mean implant deviations were shown to be highest for auricular implants with the exception of angular deviations. Surgical templates without fixation pins only showed a non-significant difference in angular deviation with regard to different anatomical regions. No statistically significant difference was found for depth of implants being placed with the bone- fixated surgical templates.
Table 2. Mean deviations (mm) with regard to the bone fixated and skin supported surgical template.
Orbit
Supraorbital ridge
Lateral orbital ridge
Inferior orbital ridge
7 mm
N=5 N=7 N=3 N=1
49
10 mm
N =14 N = 13 N = 15 N = 18
87
With fixation pins (no. of implants)
10 10 10 10
70
Nose
Temporal bone N=33 N = 27 30 30 3
Total
Nasal floor (piriform aperture)
Surgical templates
P-value
.0749 .0248 .0179 .0010
Implant tip (mm) Implant shoulder (mm) Angle (mm)
Depth (mm)
Fixation pins
[95% confidence interval]
3.3 [2.6, 4.0]
3.7 [3.0, 4.4]*
8.0 [6.9, 9.2]*
-0.8 [-1.2, -0.4]
No fixation pins [95% confidence interval]
2.5 [1.8, 3.2]
2.5 [1.8, 3.2]*
5.9 [4.7, 7.1]*
0.2 [-0.2, 0.6]
* Backward regression analysis shows anatomical location as statistically significant factor (P <.05).
53