# Integration of unilateral tooth mucosa-supported retentive surgical guide design in implant guided surgery: an in-vitro study

## TL;DR

This study compares two surgical guide designs for dental implants and finds that a fixation pin design reduces implant deviation better than a retentive design.

## Contribution

The study introduces a novel retentive surgical guide design and compares its performance with a fixation pin design in implant surgery.

## Key findings

- Both surgical guide designs kept implant deviations within a 2 mm safety margin.
- The fixation pin design showed significantly less vertical implant deviation than the retentive design.
- The retentive design required additional software adjustments and exhibited larger deviations.

## Abstract

This study aimed to compare a retentive surgical guide design with a fixation pin design in unilateral mandibular distal extension cases and evaluate their resulting implant deviations.

Ten epoxy models with a soft tissue-simulating layer were used, each fitted with two surgical guide designs. The retentive guide featured clasp-like extensions, a 0.07 mm guide-to-tooth offset, and a 2.3 mm thickness. The fixation pin design had a 0.2 mm offset, a 3 mm thickness, and one fixation pin in the distal edentulous region. Eight directional forces were applied through the drill handle. The models were scanned before and after force application. Simulated implants were inserted into 180 scans, resulting in a total of 306 implants. Post-scan data were superimposed onto the initial plan to assess implant and guide deviation.

The baseline deviation was 0.34 ± 0.19 mm for the retentive design and 0.30 ± 0.14 mm for the fixation pin design (P = 1.00). Both designs produced simulated implant deviations within the recommended 2 mm safety margin. However, the retentive design showed significantly greater vertical implant deviation compared to the fixation design (0.99 ± 0.76 mm vs. 0.50 ± 0.34 mm, P < 0.001).

Incorporating retention features into surgical guides reduces simulated implant displacement in unilateral distal extension cases. However, the retentive guide exhibited larger implant deviations than the fixation design and required additional software adjustments, indicating a need for further refinement.