Accuracy of Guided Drilling, Partially Guided Trephination, and Fully Guided Trephination Within a Static Surgical Guide for Apicoectomy in Hard Bone: An In Vitro Study

TL;DR

This study compares the accuracy of different guided surgical tools for apicoectomy in hard bone using 3D-printed guides and finds that fully guided systems perform best.

Contribution

The study provides new empirical data on the performance of guided apicoectomy tools in hard bone, comparing fully and partially guided approaches.

Findings

Fully guided trephine showed the highest drilling accuracy in hard bone.

Partially guided trephination and drilling had greater apical deviations compared to fully guided methods.

Accuracy differences were most notable in the vertical (z) dimension.

Abstract

Aim: Static guided computer-assisted apicoectomy has been shown to improve the precision of periapical surgery; however, limited data are available regarding its performance and accuracy in hard bone conditions. The primary aim of this study was to collect data on how this technique functions in hard bone and to evaluate the accuracy of different guided approaches under these conditions. Specifically, the accuracy of three surgical instruments—a commercially available bone drill, a bone trephine (partially guided), and an endo-trephine with a stopper (fully guided)—was compared in hard bone. Materials and methods: Sheep mandibles were scanned using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and an intraoral scanner (STL). Digital planning was performed using commercially available dental implant surgical planning software. Guided apicoectomy procedures were carried out with the aid of 3D-printed surgical guides. Following the interventions, matching metal cylinders were inserted into the prepared osteotomies, and post-operative CBCT scans were acquired. Apical deviation from the digitally planned endpoint and angular deviation were analyzed to assess accuracy in hard bone. Results: The drill demonstrated a statistically significantly higher apical deviation compared to the endo-stop trephine (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in apical deviation was found between the bone trephine and the endo-stop trephine. Additionally, no significant differences were observed among the three approaches in the mesiodistal (x) and buccolingual (y) directions or in angular deviation; however, a statistically significant difference was detected in the vertical (z) dimension. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, static guided apicoectomy proved to be a reliable technique in hard bone conditions. The fully guided trephine approach demonstrated the highest drilling accuracy, while partially guided trephination and drilling showed greater deviations. These findings provide valuable data on the behavior and precision of different endosurgical guided instruments in hard bone and support the use of fully guided systems when high accuracy is required.

Figures