| Flügge et al. 2020
58
|
5 patients |
Feasibility of dental implant planning using CAD/CAM processes based on MRI |
|
| Hilgenfeld et al. 2020
62
|
30 patients |
Accuracy and reliability of dental implant planning based on MRI, comparison to dental implant planning based on CBCT |
Excellent interrater agreement for implant planning in MRI, excellent intermodality agreement for MRI and CBCT, adequate prediction of implant type, length and diameter, in pre-operative MRI, mean deviations between MRI planning and actual implant position were 1.1 ± 0.7 mm at implant shoulder, 1.3 ± 0.7 mm at implant apex and 2.4 ± 1.5° angular deviation, respectively
|
| Probst et al. 2020
59
|
12 patients |
Feasibility of dental implant planning using CAD/CAM processes based on MRI, comparison of planned and actual implant positions |
Mean deviation between planned and actual implant position were 0.8 ± 0.3 mm at implant shoulder, 1.2 ± 0.6 mm at implant apex and 4.9 ± 3.6° angular deviation, respectively
|
| Schwindling et al. 2021
60
|
27 patients, 41 implants |
Accuracy of PIGS based on MRI |
Accuracy slightly lower than reported for CBCT based guided surgery mean deviation between planned and actual implant position: 1.7 ± 0.9 mm entry point, 2.3 ± 1.1 mm apex, 7.1 ± 4.8° axis mean deviation between planned and actual implant position in CBCT: 1.9 ± 1.7 mm entry point, 2.5 ± 1.5 mm apex, 6.8 ± 3.8° axis
|
| Grandoch et al. 2021
61
|
16 patients, 22 implants |
Comparison of MRI and CBCT-based dental implant planning |
CBCT-based planning received “ideal” rating in all cases, for 3D HR T1w TSE “ideal” rating was achieved for 81.9% of cases and ‘improvable’ rating for 18.1% for 3D HR T1w FFE ‘ideal’ 54.2% ‘improvable’ 30.0% ‘not acceptable’ 15.3% differences between implant positions in CBCT and MRI: apical position 1.2 ± 0.7 mm and 1.3 ± 0.5 mm coronally, 3.0 ± 1.2 degrees. distance to the mandibular canal significantly higher with MRI: 1.3 ± 0.8 mm
|
