Search

Objectives: The objective of this study is (1) to compare the accuracy of an open‐sleeved static computer‐assisted implant system (sCAIS) with a closed‐sleeve sCAIS and free‐hand approach in immediate implant placement (IIP) of maxillary molar sites and (2) to investigate the influence of socket morphology on these approaches. Materials and Methods: Ninety partially edentulous duplicated maxillary models simulating three different molar sockets (type A, B, and C based on Smith and Tarnow's classification) were investigated. Three modalities, including sCAIS with open‐sleeves, sCAIS with closed‐sleeves, and free‐hand approach, were applied separately to 30 models with 120 sockets. A customized Python script automatically measured the deviations between the virtual and actual implant positions for all 360 implants. Results: The 3D deviations of sCAIS were significantly influenced by the socket and sleeve types. Both guided groups exhibited significantly less deviation than the free‐hand approach. Type A and C sockets resulted in better implant positions than type B socket sites. In type B sockets, the open‐sleeve group achieved significantly less deviation compared to the closed‐sleeve group, with respect to apical global (1.34 ± 0.53 vs. 1.84 ± 0.59 mm), coronal horizontal (0.68 ± 0.36 vs. 0.93 ± 0.34 mm), apical horizontal (1.21 ± 0.59 vs. 1.74 ± 0.63 mm), and angular (3.30 ± 1.41 vs. 4.41 ± 1.96°) deviations. Conclusions: Guided implant surgery significantly reduces deviations during molar IIP compared to free‐hand procedures. Furthermore, the use of open‐sleeve sCAIS appears to be more effective in minimizing deviations in type B sockets when compared with the closed‐sleeve guided system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]