Multifactorial Analysis of Trueness in Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Retrospective Study

IF 5.3 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2025-06-03 DOI:10.1111/clr.14458

Weie Song, Chen Deng, Chenyu Rao, Yilin Luo, Xingmei Yang, Yingying Wu, Yili Qu, Yi Man

{"title":"Multifactorial Analysis of Trueness in Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Weie Song, Chen Deng, Chenyu Rao, Yilin Luo, Xingmei Yang, Yingying Wu, Yili Qu, Yi Man","doi":"10.1111/clr.14458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To investigate the clinically acceptable deviation threshold and the factors associated with trueness across three computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) approaches: static CAIS (s-CAIS), dynamic CAIS (d-CAIS), and robotic CAIS (r-CAIS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 314 implants in 194 patients were retrospectively included, with preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans collected. Outcome measures included platform, apex, and angular deviations, which were assessed by registering postoperative CBCT scans to preoperative implant plans using a jawbone matching technique. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were employed to identify significant factors associated with implant trueness.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In r-CAIS, mean global deviations were 0.65 ± 0.137 mm (platform), 0.73 ± 0.39 mm (apex), and 1.66° ± 0.99° (angular), significantly smaller than s-CAIS and d-CAIS (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Deviations in d-CAIS were 1.15 ± 0.55 mm, 1.23 ± 0.56 mm, and 2.87° ± 1.71°, whereas s-CAIS showed 0.96 ± 0.56 mm, 1.32 ± 0.67 mm, and 3.42° ± 1.85°. No significant differences were found between s-CAIS and d-CAIS (<i>p</i> > 0.01). All approaches met clinical acceptability thresholds of 1.5 mm for linear and 5° for angular deviation (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Analysis revealed that bone inclinations exceeding 45° significantly increased implant deviations at apex and angular (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Additionally, deviations were greater in the molar region, particularly at the second molar (<i>p</i> < 0.01).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>All three CAIS approaches demonstrated clinically acceptable trueness, with the r-CAIS showing superior performance. Bone inclination and molar placement were identified as key factors contributing to increased deviations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2400083777</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"36 9","pages":"1095-1105"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14458","RegionNum":1,"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 investigate the clinically acceptable deviation threshold and the factors associated with trueness across three computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) approaches: static CAIS (s-CAIS), dynamic CAIS (d-CAIS), and robotic CAIS (r-CAIS).

Materials and Methods

A total of 314 implants in 194 patients were retrospectively included, with preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans collected. Outcome measures included platform, apex, and angular deviations, which were assessed by registering postoperative CBCT scans to preoperative implant plans using a jawbone matching technique. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were employed to identify significant factors associated with implant trueness.

Results

In r-CAIS, mean global deviations were 0.65 ± 0.137 mm (platform), 0.73 ± 0.39 mm (apex), and 1.66° ± 0.99° (angular), significantly smaller than s-CAIS and d-CAIS (p < 0.01). Deviations in d-CAIS were 1.15 ± 0.55 mm, 1.23 ± 0.56 mm, and 2.87° ± 1.71°, whereas s-CAIS showed 0.96 ± 0.56 mm, 1.32 ± 0.67 mm, and 3.42° ± 1.85°. No significant differences were found between s-CAIS and d-CAIS (p > 0.01). All approaches met clinical acceptability thresholds of 1.5 mm for linear and 5° for angular deviation (p < 0.01). Analysis revealed that bone inclinations exceeding 45° significantly increased implant deviations at apex and angular (p < 0.01). Additionally, deviations were greater in the molar region, particularly at the second molar (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

All three CAIS approaches demonstrated clinically acceptable trueness, with the r-CAIS showing superior performance. Bone inclination and molar placement were identified as key factors contributing to increased deviations.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2400083777

查看原文本刊更多论文

计算机辅助种植手术的多因素分析：一项回顾性研究

目的探讨三种计算机辅助种植手术（CAIS）入路的临床可接受偏差阈值和与准确性相关的因素：静态CAIS （s‐CAIS）、动态CAIS （d‐CAIS）和机器人CAIS （r‐CAIS）。材料与方法回顾性分析194例患者共314颗种植体，收集术前和术后CBCT扫描结果。结果测量包括平台、顶点和角度偏差，通过使用颌骨匹配技术将术后CBCT扫描记录到术前种植计划中来评估。采用广义线性混合模型（GLMM）识别与种植体真实度相关的重要因素。结果r‐CAIS的平均全局偏差为0.65±0.137 mm（平台）、0.73±0.39 mm（顶点）和1.66°±0.99°（角度），显著小于s‐CAIS和d‐CAIS (p <；0.01)。d‐CAIS的偏差分别为1.15±0.55 mm、1.23±0.56 mm和2.87°±1.71°，而s‐CAIS的偏差分别为0.96±0.56 mm、1.32±0.67 mm和3.42°±1.85°。s - CAIS和d - CAIS之间无显著差异(p >；0.01)。所有方法均符合临床可接受阈值，线性偏差为1.5 mm，角偏差为5°(p <；0.01)。分析显示，骨倾角超过45°会显著增加种植体的尖和角偏差(p <；0.01)。此外，磨牙区域的偏差更大，特别是在第二磨牙(p <；0.01)。结论三种CAIS入路均表现出临床可接受的准确性，其中r - CAIS表现出更好的表现。骨倾斜和磨牙放置被认为是导致偏差增加的关键因素。中国临床试验注册中心：ChiCTR2400083777

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 Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.