PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) by comparing the planned and actual positions of implants placed in a partially edentulous model using surgical templates with different sleeve designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine mandibular partially edentulous models were scanned using a model scanner to create standard tessellation language (STL) files. The models were divided into seven groups based on sleeve design: Group 1–4 (Open non-metal sleeves with varying heights (3 mm, 6 mm) and buccal widths (5 mm, 6 mm)), Group 5–6 (Closed non-metal sleeves with heights of 3 mm and 6 mm), and Group 7 (Closed metal sleeve). After implant placement at #45 and #47, STL files were generated and analyzed using 3D measurement software. Deviations were measured in terms of horizontal deviation (coronal and apical), vertical deviation, and angular deviation. Statistical significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple generalized linear models. RESULTS: While height differences showed no significant deviations (P > .05), there was a tendency for larger apical deviation with increased sleeve height (P < .1). Closed metal and closed non-metal sleeves showed smaller deviations compared to open non-metal sleeves, except in vertical deviation. CONCLUSION Closed sleeves demonstrated greater accuracy in s-CAIS compared to open sleeves. Higher sleeves may improve implant placement accuracy, but buccal insertion width did not significantly affect accuracy.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) by comparing the planned and actual positions of implants placed in a partially edentulous model using surgical templates with different sleeve designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine mandibular partially edentulous models were scanned using a model scanner to create standard tessellation language (STL) files. The models were divided into seven groups based on sleeve design: Group 1–4 (Open non-metal sleeves with varying heights (3 mm, 6 mm) and buccal widths (5 mm, 6 mm)), Group 5–6 (Closed non-metal sleeves with heights of 3 mm and 6 mm), and Group 7 (Closed metal sleeve). After implant placement at #45 and #47, STL files were generated and analyzed using 3D measurement software. Deviations were measured in terms of horizontal deviation (coronal and apical), vertical deviation, and angular deviation. Statistical significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple generalized linear models. RESULTS: While height differences showed no significant deviations (P > .05), there was a tendency for larger apical deviation with increased sleeve height (P < .1). Closed metal and closed non-metal sleeves showed smaller deviations compared to open non-metal sleeves, except in vertical deviation. CONCLUSION Closed sleeves demonstrated greater accuracy in s-CAIS compared to open sleeves. Higher sleeves may improve implant placement accuracy, but buccal insertion width did not significantly affect accuracy.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) by comparing the planned and actual positions of implants placed in a partially edentulous model using surgical templates with different sleeve designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine mandibular partially edentulous models were scanned using a model scanner to create standard tessellation language (STL) files. The models were divided into seven groups based on sleeve design: Group 1–4 (Open non-metal sleeves with varying heights (3 mm, 6 mm) and buccal widths (5 mm, 6 mm)), Group 5–6 (Closed non-metal sleeves with heights of 3 mm and 6 mm), and Group 7 (Closed metal sleeve). After implant placement at #45 and #47, STL files were generated and analyzed using 3D measurement software. Deviations were measured in terms of horizontal deviation (coronal and apical), vertical deviation, and angular deviation. Statistical significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple generalized linear models. RESULTS: While height differences showed no significant deviations (P > .05), there was a tendency for larger apical deviation with increased sleeve height (P < .1). Closed metal and closed non-metal sleeves showed smaller deviations compared to open non-metal sleeves, except in vertical deviation. CONCLUSION Closed sleeves demonstrated greater accuracy in s-CAIS compared to open sleeves. Higher sleeves may improve implant placement accuracy, but buccal insertion width did not significantly affect accuracy.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) by comparing the planned and actual positions of implants placed in a partially edentulous model using surgical templates with different sleeve designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine mandibular partially edentulous models were scanned using a model scanner to create standard tessellation language (STL) files. The models were divided into seven groups based on sleeve design: Group 1–4 (Open non-metal sleeves with varying heights (3 mm, 6 mm) and buccal widths (5 mm, 6 mm)), Group 5–6 (Closed non-metal sleeves with heights of 3 mm and 6 mm), and Group 7 (Closed metal sleeve). After implant placement at #45 and #47, STL files were generated and analyzed using 3D measurement software. Deviations were measured in terms of horizontal deviation (coronal and apical), vertical deviation, and angular deviation. Statistical significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple generalized linear models. RESULTS: While height differences showed no significant deviations (P > .05), there was a tendency for larger apical deviation with increased sleeve height (P < .1). Closed metal and closed non-metal sleeves showed smaller deviations compared to open non-metal sleeves, except in vertical deviation. CONCLUSION Closed sleeves demonstrated greater accuracy in s-CAIS compared to open sleeves. Higher sleeves may improve implant placement accuracy, but buccal insertion width did not significantly affect accuracy.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) by comparing the planned and actual positions of implants placed in a partially edentulous model using surgical templates with different sleeve designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine mandibular partially edentulous models were scanned using a model scanner to create standard tessellation language (STL) files. The models were divided into seven groups based on sleeve design: Group 1–4 (Open non-metal sleeves with varying heights (3 mm, 6 mm) and buccal widths (5 mm, 6 mm)), Group 5–6 (Closed non-metal sleeves with heights of 3 mm and 6 mm), and Group 7 (Closed metal sleeve). After implant placement at #45 and #47, STL files were generated and analyzed using 3D measurement software. Deviations were measured in terms of horizontal deviation (coronal and apical), vertical deviation, and angular deviation. Statistical significance was evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple generalized linear models. RESULTS: While height differences showed no significant deviations (P > .05), there was a tendency for larger apical deviation with increased sleeve height (P < .1). Closed metal and closed non-metal sleeves showed smaller deviations compared to open non-metal sleeves, except in vertical deviation. CONCLUSION Closed sleeves demonstrated greater accuracy in s-CAIS compared to open sleeves. Higher sleeves may improve implant placement accuracy, but buccal insertion width did not significantly affect accuracy.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.