{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Comparison of Accuracy and Operation Time in Robotic, Dynamic, and Static-Assisted Endodontic Microsurgery: An In Vitro Study
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.
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.