Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Purpose: This retrospective study compared the maxillary sinus floor augmentation techniques (lateral and transcrestal approaches) to assess the impact of bone grafting, graft materials, and initial residual bone height (RBH). Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who underwent maxillary sinus floor augmentation for posterior maxillary implant placement were included. Panoramic radiographs were obtained before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 6-10 months post-surgery (T2). Length measurements on panoramic radiographs were performed using a digital caliper at T1 and T2. Statistical validation included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and correlation analyses. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess associations after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: Of the 50 patients, 35 underwent a transcrestal approach and 15 underwent a lateral approach. The results showed significant endosinus bone gain (ESBG) differences between allogeneic and xenogeneic grafts and no grafts (p < .001). Osteotomy sinus floor elevation without grafting yielded 3.24 ± 1.42 of ESBG. When divided into three groups based on initial RBH, RBH 1 had 27 patients, RBH 2 had 12 patients, and RBH 3 had 11 patients. Within the RBH group 1 (RBH under 4), the lateral approach had significantly greater ESBG than the transcrestal approach (p < .001). Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed statistically significant associations between the studied variables after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion When the RBH is < 4 mm, lateral-approach sinus augmentation and bone grafting should be performed to attain significant ESBG. The RBH, bone graft materials, and sinus elevation techniques vary considerably in ESBG.

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of the guide hole height on the accuracy of implant placement using CAD/ CAM-fabricated surgical guides in resin models. The hypothesis is that decreasing the height of the guide hole reduces placement accuracy. Materials and Methods: Ten identical partially edentulous maxillary models were each fitted with surgical guides featuring guide hole heights of 1 mm, 3 mm, and/or 5 mm. Using a surgical guide and drill kit, implants were placed in six predetermined sites per model. Placement accuracy was evaluated by comparing the actual implant positions with the planned positions using digital scanning and computer software analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the significance of deviations at both the coronal and apical positions. Results: The average deviations were 0.75±0.33 mm at the coronal position and 1.10±0.51 mm at the apical position. Placement accuracy didnot differ with different guide hole heights. Additionally, errors were consistent regardless of the guide hole height and were not influenced by the type of support or the implant placement site. Conclusion In this rotro study, varying the height of the guide hole did not significantly affect the accuracy of implant placement. The results suggest that guide hole height within the tested range does not have a substantial impact on placement errors. Our findings indicate that factors other than the guide holeheight may play a more critical role in implant placement accuracy.

Background: Mandibular condyle remodeling and displacement are post-orthognathic surgery concerns that can potentially lead to occlusal issues after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. This retrospective study examined the relationship between condylar volume changes and position alterations after surgery in patients with skeletal class II and III malocclusions using cone-beam CT. Methods: The study included 16 patients (6 with Class II malocclusion, 10 with Class III malocclusion) who underwent bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy at Chonnam National University Hospital. Cone-beam CT data were collected at three specific time points: before surgery, immediately after surgery, and approximately 6 months post-surgery.Mandibular movement was measured using InVivoDental 5.4.6. ITK-SNAP 3.8.0 was used to assessed condylar volume changes post-surgery. Condyle positions were evaluated in four parts with RadiAnt DICOM Viewer 4.6.9. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS version 23. Results: Considering both Class II and III malocclusion, a 2.91% volume reduction was noted immediately and at 6 months after surgery. Both Class II and III cases demonstrated a decrease in superior joint space by -0.59 mm and medial joint space by -1.09 mm. No significant correlation was found between this process and condylar volume change. Conclusions The mandibular condyle volume decreased, and superior-medial movement of the condyle was detected in patients with Class II and III malocclusion immediately and at 6 months after surgery with no volumeposition correlation.

Objectives: Selection of treatment methods for mandibular condylar fractures remains controversial. In this study, we investigated treatment methods for condylar fractures to determine the indications for open or closed reduction. Patients and Methods: Patients >12 years of age treated for mandibular condylar fractures with a follow-up period of ≥3 months were included inthis study. The medical records of enrolled patients were reviewed for sex, age, fracture site, treatment method (open or closed reconstruction), postoperative intermaxillary fixation period, operation time, and complications. Radiological analysis of fracture fragment displacement and changes in ramal height difference was performed using computed tomography and panoramic radiography. Results: A total of 198 patients was investigated, 48.0% (n=95) of whom underwent closed reduction and 52.0% (n=103) underwent open reduction.There was no significant correlation between reduction method and patient sex, age, or follow-up period. No statistically significant difference between the incidence of complications and treatment method was observed. None of the patients underwent open reduction of condylar head fracture. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that open reduction was significantly more frequent in patients with subcondylar fracture compared to in those with a fracture in the condylar head area. There was no statistically significant correlation between the groups and fracture fragment displacement. However, there was a significant difference between the treatment groups in amount of change in ramal height difference between the fractured and the nonfractured sides during treatment. Conclusion No significant clinical differences were found between the open and closed reduction methods in patients with mandibular condylar fractures. According to fracture site, closed reduction was preferred for condyle head fractures. There was no significant relationship between fracture fragment displacement and treatment method.

Background: Recently developed imaging techniques, such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and CAD/CAM technology, have facilitated reliable implant planning and implant surgical guide production by 3D printing. This study compared the accuracy of implant-guided surgery using the R2GATE® program with CBCT before and after surgery. Patients and methods: The study included patients who visited the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Chonnam National University Hospital from September 2021 to March 2022. Twenty-four implants were placed in eleven patients. Using R2GATE® Windows (Megagen implant, Daegu, Korea) software, implant placement was planned. The difference was measured by the CBCT before and after surgery. The cervical and apical distance and angular deviation of the implants were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using an independent t-test, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analyses. Results: The three-dimensional linear distance difference between the planned implant and the placed implant was 0.97 ± 0.37 mm at the cervical and 1.13 ± 0.36 mm at the apical. The difference in angle deviation between the planned implant and the placed implant was 3.42 ± 2.12°. Among the variables affecting the accuracy of implant placement, a statistically significant difference was found when using a tissue-supported implant guide, implant diameter and implant length. Conclusion Based on these results, using the R2GATE® program is useful to use an implant digital surgical guide, and it will be used in various clinic.