Background: Implant placement using a conventional surgical guide and digital surgical guide techniques is well documented in the literature. The most frequently reported disadvantages of conventional surgical guide p...Background: Implant placement using a conventional surgical guide and digital surgical guide techniques is well documented in the literature. The most frequently reported disadvantages of conventional surgical guide placement are lack of accuracy in implant placement when compared to three-dimensional assessment in digital technique. Other factors listed are longer time duration and the need for impression techniques. In this case report, the authors present a comparison between the two techniques and the time taken between both cases one done conventionally and another case by digital technique. Case Presentation: For the digital surgical guide, a 44-year-old, male reported with the chief complaint of missing teeth needing replacement was considered. For the conventional technique, a female patient aged fifty-seven who had gone through various dentists with an existing bridge was considered. This patient wanted a good outcome at a reasonable cost. In both cases, molars were missing and needed replacement. The steps for digital flow for a surgical guide and step-by-step conventional methods are both highlighted in this article. Conclusion: Hence the digital technique saved time and was accurate when compared to the conventional in our experience.展开更多
文摘Background: Implant placement using a conventional surgical guide and digital surgical guide techniques is well documented in the literature. The most frequently reported disadvantages of conventional surgical guide placement are lack of accuracy in implant placement when compared to three-dimensional assessment in digital technique. Other factors listed are longer time duration and the need for impression techniques. In this case report, the authors present a comparison between the two techniques and the time taken between both cases one done conventionally and another case by digital technique. Case Presentation: For the digital surgical guide, a 44-year-old, male reported with the chief complaint of missing teeth needing replacement was considered. For the conventional technique, a female patient aged fifty-seven who had gone through various dentists with an existing bridge was considered. This patient wanted a good outcome at a reasonable cost. In both cases, molars were missing and needed replacement. The steps for digital flow for a surgical guide and step-by-step conventional methods are both highlighted in this article. Conclusion: Hence the digital technique saved time and was accurate when compared to the conventional in our experience.
