Safety and accuracy assessment of static computer assisted localized piezoelectric alveolar decortication: an in vitro study.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
María Lara-Muros, Octavi Camps-Font, Javi Vilarrasa, Jordi Vilarrasa, Javier Mir-Mari, Rui Figueiredo, Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón
{"title":"Safety and accuracy assessment of static computer assisted localized piezoelectric alveolar decortication: an in vitro study.","authors":"María Lara-Muros, Octavi Camps-Font, Javi Vilarrasa, Jordi Vilarrasa, Javier Mir-Mari, Rui Figueiredo, Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-05920-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the safety and accuracy of static computer assisted corticotomy surgery (sCACS) in comparison with freehand piezocision.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A randomized in vitro study was conducted. A total of 260 interradicular corticotomies were performed in 20 identical printed models. sCACS was performed in half of the models, while the rest underwent freehand localized decortication. Accuracy was measured in the three spatial axes by overlapping the digital planning with a previous cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of the patient and a postoperative CBCT of the models. Safety was determined as the number of damaged root surfaces. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Freehand corticotomies increased the likelihood of iatrogenic root damage 2.21-fold (95%CI: 1.30 to 3.77; p = 0.004). Both groups showed some degree of deviation compared to digital planning. Nevertheless, the accuracy of sCACS was significantly greater in sagittal (B = -0.21 mm, 95%CI: -0.29 to -0.12; p < 0.001), axial (B = -0.32 mm, 95%CI: -0.48 to -0.18; p < 0.001) and angular deviation (B = -2.02º; 95%CI: -2.37 to -1.66; p < 0.001) compared to freehand surgery, with the exception of depth.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The precision and safety of sCACS are greater than the freehand technique.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Corticotomies are performed in crowded areas where there is usually space limitation. Clinicians should consider the systematic use of surgical guides, since minimal deviations can cause iatrogenic root damage in areas where malocclusions are present.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"28 12","pages":"674"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11609119/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05920-y","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

Objectives: To assess the safety and accuracy of static computer assisted corticotomy surgery (sCACS) in comparison with freehand piezocision.

Materials and methods: A randomized in vitro study was conducted. A total of 260 interradicular corticotomies were performed in 20 identical printed models. sCACS was performed in half of the models, while the rest underwent freehand localized decortication. Accuracy was measured in the three spatial axes by overlapping the digital planning with a previous cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of the patient and a postoperative CBCT of the models. Safety was determined as the number of damaged root surfaces. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed.

Results: Freehand corticotomies increased the likelihood of iatrogenic root damage 2.21-fold (95%CI: 1.30 to 3.77; p = 0.004). Both groups showed some degree of deviation compared to digital planning. Nevertheless, the accuracy of sCACS was significantly greater in sagittal (B = -0.21 mm, 95%CI: -0.29 to -0.12; p < 0.001), axial (B = -0.32 mm, 95%CI: -0.48 to -0.18; p < 0.001) and angular deviation (B = -2.02º; 95%CI: -2.37 to -1.66; p < 0.001) compared to freehand surgery, with the exception of depth.

Conclusions: The precision and safety of sCACS are greater than the freehand technique.

Clinical relevance: Corticotomies are performed in crowded areas where there is usually space limitation. Clinicians should consider the systematic use of surgical guides, since minimal deviations can cause iatrogenic root damage in areas where malocclusions are present.

静态计算机辅助局部压电牙槽去皮的安全性和准确性评估:一项体外研究。
目的:评价静态计算机辅助皮质切开术(sCACS)与徒手压切术的安全性和准确性。材料与方法:采用随机体外实验。在20个相同的打印模型中,共进行260例神经根间皮质切开术。在一半的模型中进行sCACS,其余模型进行徒手局部去皮。通过将数字规划与患者先前的锥束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)扫描和模型的术后CBCT重叠,在三个空间轴上测量精度。安全性以受损根面的数量来确定。进行了描述性和双变量分析。结果:徒手皮质切开术使医源性牙根损伤的可能性增加2.21倍(95%CI: 1.30 ~ 3.77;p = 0.004)。与数字规划相比,两组都表现出一定程度的偏差。然而,sCACS在矢状位的准确性明显更高(B = -0.21 mm, 95%CI: -0.29至-0.12;结论:sCACS的准确性和安全性均高于徒手法。临床意义:皮质切开术通常在空间有限的拥挤区域进行。临床医生应该考虑系统地使用手术导向器,因为最小的偏差会在存在错咬合的区域引起医源性牙根损伤。
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
Clinical Oral Investigations
Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
484
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信