Comparing the accuracies of freehand, static computer-assisted and robot-assisted dental implant placements: an in vitro study.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-01-17 DOI:10.3290/j.ijcd.b4870451

Tianyue Su, Weiwei Teng, Minghui Chu, Yucheng Su, Libo Zhou

{"title":"Comparing the accuracies of freehand, static computer-assisted and robot-assisted dental implant placements: an in vitro study.","authors":"Tianyue Su, Weiwei Teng, Minghui Chu, Yucheng Su, Libo Zhou","doi":"10.3290/j.ijcd.b4870451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the accuracies among three oral implant surgical techniques: freehand (FH), static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS), and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS).Methods: The polyurethane and bovine femur implant models were fabricated, and 126 and 96 implant sites were designed on them. The implant sites were divided into three groups: FH, sCAIS, and rCAIS, according to the implantation method. The deviation between the actual implant position and the planned position was analyzed and compared by cone beam computed tomography.Results: In the polyurethane model test, the entry deviation, entry-level deviation, apical deviation, apical level deviation, and angle deviation in sCAIS and rCAIS groups were significantly reduced compared with those in the FH group (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in all kinds of deviations between the sCAIS and rCAIS groups (P>0.05). In the bovine femur model test, the entry deviation, entry-level deviation, apical deviation, apical level deviation, and angle deviation in both sCAIS and rCAIS groups were significantly reduced compared with those in the FH group (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in all kinds of deviations between the sCAIS and rCAIS groups (P>0.05).Conclusion: This in vitro study shows that the rCAIS technique is superior to the freehand, but has the same accuracy as the sCAIS.","PeriodicalId":48666,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ijcd.b4870451","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the accuracies among three oral implant surgical techniques: freehand (FH), static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS), and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS).

Methods: The polyurethane and bovine femur implant models were fabricated, and 126 and 96 implant sites were designed on them. The implant sites were divided into three groups: FH, sCAIS, and rCAIS, according to the implantation method. The deviation between the actual implant position and the planned position was analyzed and compared by cone beam computed tomography.

Results: In the polyurethane model test, the entry deviation, entry-level deviation, apical deviation, apical level deviation, and angle deviation in sCAIS and rCAIS groups were significantly reduced compared with those in the FH group (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in all kinds of deviations between the sCAIS and rCAIS groups (P>0.05). In the bovine femur model test, the entry deviation, entry-level deviation, apical deviation, apical level deviation, and angle deviation in both sCAIS and rCAIS groups were significantly reduced compared with those in the FH group (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in all kinds of deviations between the sCAIS and rCAIS groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion: This in vitro study shows that the rCAIS technique is superior to the freehand, but has the same accuracy as the sCAIS.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较徒手、静态计算机辅助和机器人辅助种植牙的准确性：一项体外研究。

目的：比较三种口腔种植手术技术的准确性：比较徒手（FH）、静态计算机辅助种植手术（sCAIS）和机器人计算机辅助种植手术（rCAIS）三种口腔种植手术技术的准确性：方法：制作聚氨酯和牛股骨种植模型，并在模型上分别设计了 126 和 96 个种植位点。植入部位分为三组：根据植入方法将植入部位分为 FH、sCAIS 和 rCAIS 三组。通过锥形束计算机断层扫描分析和比较了实际种植位置与计划位置之间的偏差：结果：在聚氨酯模型试验中，sCAIS 组和 rCAIS 组的入口偏差、入口水平偏差、根尖偏差、根尖水平偏差和角度偏差与 FH 组相比明显减少（P0.05）。在牛股骨模型试验中，与 FH 组相比，sCAIS 组和 rCAIS 组的入口偏差、入口水平偏差、心尖偏差、心尖水平偏差和角度偏差均明显减少（P0.05）：这项体外研究表明，rCAIS 技术优于徒手操作，但其准确性与 sCAIS 相同。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (miscellaneous)

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： This journal explores the myriad innovations in the emerging field of computerized dentistry and how to integrate them into clinical practice. The bulk of the journal is devoted to the science of computer-assisted dentistry, with research articles and clinical reports on all aspects of computer-based diagnostic and therapeutic applications, with special emphasis placed on CAD/CAM and image-processing systems. Articles also address the use of computer-based communication to support patient care, assess the quality of care, and enhance clinical decision making. The journal is presented in a bilingual format, with each issue offering three types of articles: science-based, application-based, and national society reports.