Evaluation of surgical placement accuracy of customized CAD/CAM titanium mesh using screws‐position‐guided template: A retrospective comparative study.

Background: Customized computer‐aided‐design/computer‐aided‐manufacturing (CAD/CAM) titanium meshes have been adopted for alveolar bone augmentation. But the inaccuracies between planned and created bone volume/contour are quite common, and the surgical placement of the customized mesh was considered as the first critical factor. However, the evaluation of surgical placement accuracy of customized mesh is currently lacking. Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the surgical placement of customized meshes. Methods: A total of 30 cases, 20 without the screws‐position‐guided template and 10 with the screws‐position‐guided template, were included in this study. The cone beam CT (CBCT) data sets of pre‐ and postoperative were converted into 3D models and digitally aligned. Then the actual placement of customized mesh and retainer titanium screws was compared to the virtual one to assess the surgical placement accuracy of customized mesh. At least 6 months after surgery, a new CBCT was taken and converted into 3D models. Planned bone volume, created bone volume, vertical bone augmentation, healing complications rate, pseudo‐periosteum rate, exposure rate, and infection rate were all evaluated. Results: The 3D digital reconstruction/registration analysis showed that the average difference between actual placement and planned one of customized mesh in positive and negative directions was 2.69 ± 0.70 mm and −1.41 ± 0.90 mm, respectively, without the screws‐position‐guided template. And the mean difference values between the actual and planned placement of the screws on the X and Y axes were 0.74 ± 0.85 mm and 0.89 ± 0.84 mm. In contrast, with the screws‐position‐guided template, the results were 2.38 ± 0.69 mm and −1.30 ± 1.13 mm. Accordingly, the mean difference values of screws were 0.76 ± 0.84 mm and 0.94 ± 0.72 mm. There was no statistical difference between the two groups, and the noninferiority of the control group compared to the test group was also confirmed by the comparative analysis. Conclusion: It can be concluded that there is a certain deviation between the planned surgical placement and actual one of customized mesh, and using screws‐position‐guided template is of limited help for its accurate placement. Further research is needed to achieve precise surgical placement of the customized mesh to achieve precise alveolar bone augmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]