Comparison of Accuracy and Operation Time in Robotic, Dynamic, and Static-Assisted Endodontic Microsurgery: An In Vitro Study

IF 3.5 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of endodontics Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2024.05.018

{"title":"Comparison of Accuracy and Operation Time in Robotic, Dynamic, and Static-Assisted Endodontic Microsurgery: An In Vitro Study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.joen.2024.05.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This study aimed to compare the accuracy and operation time (OT) of robotic-assisted endodontic<span> microsurgery (RA-EMS), dynamic navigation-guided (DN-guided) EMS, and static navigation-guided (SN-guided) EMS.</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>Seventy-two teeth from three sets of standardized jaw models (TrueTooth, DELendo, Santa Barbara, CA) randomly assigned into 3 groups underwent osteotomy<span> and root-end resection. Preoperative plans and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography images were imported into an accuracy analysis system and aligned based on the anatomical structures to assess accuracy. The OT was recorded from the moment the foot pedal was pressed down until the bur reached the target depth. Statistical analyses were conducted using Kruskal–Wallis and Scheirer–Ray–Hare tests, with significance set at </span></span><em>P</em> < .05.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>RA-EMS exhibited significantly higher accuracy than DN- and SN-guided EMS in terms of platform, angular, and resection angular deviations (<em>P</em> < .05). Additionally, RA-EMS exhibited significantly higher accuracy than DN-guided EMS in resection length deviation (<em>P</em> < .05). Significant differences were also observed in OTs between the 3 approaches, with SN-guided EMS showing the shortest OT, followed by RA-EMS and DN-guided EMS. Differences in jaw types within the DN-guided EMS group were observed in terms of angular deviation (<em>P</em> < .05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>All 3 treatment approaches demonstrated acceptable clinical accuracy and OT. RA-EMS exhibited superior accuracy, suggesting its potential application prospects in endodontics. Further high-quality clinical studies are warranted.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009923992400342X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to compare the accuracy and operation time (OT) of robotic-assisted endodontic microsurgery (RA-EMS), dynamic navigation-guided (DN-guided) EMS, and static navigation-guided (SN-guided) EMS.

Methods

Seventy-two teeth from three sets of standardized jaw models (TrueTooth, DELendo, Santa Barbara, CA) randomly assigned into 3 groups underwent osteotomy and root-end resection. Preoperative plans and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography images were imported into an accuracy analysis system and aligned based on the anatomical structures to assess accuracy. The OT was recorded from the moment the foot pedal was pressed down until the bur reached the target depth. Statistical analyses were conducted using Kruskal–Wallis and Scheirer–Ray–Hare tests, with significance set at P < .05.

Results

RA-EMS exhibited significantly higher accuracy than DN- and SN-guided EMS in terms of platform, angular, and resection angular deviations (P < .05). Additionally, RA-EMS exhibited significantly higher accuracy than DN-guided EMS in resection length deviation (P < .05). Significant differences were also observed in OTs between the 3 approaches, with SN-guided EMS showing the shortest OT, followed by RA-EMS and DN-guided EMS. Differences in jaw types within the DN-guided EMS group were observed in terms of angular deviation (P < .05).

Conclusions

All 3 treatment approaches demonstrated acceptable clinical accuracy and OT. RA-EMS exhibited superior accuracy, suggesting its potential application prospects in endodontics. Further high-quality clinical studies are warranted.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机器人、动态和静态辅助根管显微手术的精确度和操作时间比较：体外研究

导言：本研究旨在比较机器人辅助牙髓显微手术（RA-EMS）、动态导航引导（DN-guided）EMS和静态导航引导（SN-guided）EMS的准确性和手术时间（OT）：从三套标准化颌骨模型（TrueTooth, DELendo, Santa Barbara, CA）中随机分配出 72 颗牙齿，分成三组进行截骨术和根端切除术。术前计划和术后锥束计算机断层扫描图像被导入精确度分析系统，并根据解剖结构进行对齐以评估精确度。从踩下脚踏板开始记录 OT，直到钻针到达目标深度。统计分析采用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Scheirer-Ray-Hare 检验，显著性设定为 p <0.05：在平台偏差、角度偏差和切除角度偏差方面，RA-EMS 的准确性明显高于 DN 和 SN 引导的 EMS（p < 0.05）。此外，在切除长度偏差方面，RA-EMS 的准确性明显高于 DN 引导的 EMS（P < 0.05）。三种方法的OT也存在显著差异，SN引导的EMS显示出最短的OT，其次是RA-EMS和DN引导的EMS。在角度偏差方面，DN引导的EMS组的颌骨类型也存在差异（P < 0.05）：所有三种治疗方法都表现出了可接受的临床准确性和 OT。结论：三种治疗方法都表现出了可接受的临床准确性和OT，RA-EMS表现出了更高的准确性，这表明它在牙髓病学中具有潜在的应用前景。有必要进一步开展高质量的临床研究。

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

Journal of endodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

8.80

自引率

9.50%

发文量

224

审稿时长

42 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Endodontics, the official journal of the American Association of Endodontists, publishes scientific articles, case reports and comparison studies evaluating materials and methods of pulp conservation and endodontic treatment. Endodontists and general dentists can learn about new concepts in root canal treatment and the latest advances in techniques and instrumentation in the one journal that helps them keep pace with rapid changes in this field.