We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine



Forgotten password?


Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 16 (2014), CAMLOG     5. Aug. 2014
Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 16 (2014), CAMLOG  (05.08.2014)

Supplement, Poster 803, Language: English

Accuracy Of The "MExPERT® IPM Camlog" For Economical Implant Guides
Döblitz, Marco Nicolai / Sohst, Sebastian / Mah, James / Bumann, Axel
Objectives: The aim of this experimental study is to evaluate the accuracy of the MExPERT IPM (implant planning model) and the surgical drill guide fabricated from that model.
Material and methods: DICOM data from a CBCT (MESANTIS line I; ISI, Hatfield, USA) and STL data from a plaster model scanned with the model scanner D700 (3Shape, Kopenhagen, Denmark) were matched with each other in a specific implant planning software (MESANTIS 3D Studio). Based on the matched data an implant for tooth 36 was planned with a patented new approach. In the base of the virtual model four precise wholes were placed as reference markers. The distance of the sagittal markers was 30.000 µm and the distance of the transversal markers was 25.000 µm in the virtual model. Subsequently, acrylic models were printed with Scan LED (MOVINGLight®) technology (D35, Prodways, Les Mureaux, France). All printed IPMs were evaluated with the high-end scanning system CONTURA G2 (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). To assess the basic accuracy of the IPM the sagittal and transversal distances of the reference markers were measured. After repeated placing of the Camlog sleeve holder (= IPM marker) in the planned hole of the printed IPM the vertical variation of the IPM marker was measured. In addition, the variation of the IPM marker angulation in the sagittal and transversal plane was evaluated. In the second part of the study the fabricated implant guide was evaluated with the same parameters.
Results: The mean deviation of the MExPERT IPM was 101 µm (= 0,33%) in the sagittal and 24 µm (0,4%) in the transversal dimension.
Repeated positioning of the IPM-Marker on the MExPERT IPM was associated with a vertical variation of 37µm. The angular deviation of the IPM marker in the sagittal dimension was 0,33° and in the transversal dimension 0,77°.
In the fabricated implant guide the vertical position of the Camlog sleeve varied 163 µm. The mean angular deviation of the sleeve in the implant guide was 0,4° in sagittal plane and 1,15° in transversal plane.
Conclusion: When compared with other scientific studies the MExPERT IPM Camlog seems to be the most accurate and economical implant guide for safe and fast implant placement.

Keywords: computer-aided surgery (CAS), cone-beam imaging (CBCT), dental implantology, surgical templates, drill templates, surgical guides

5th International CAMLOG Congress
26.-28. June 2014
Valencia, Spain