牙科种植体植入准确性的比较分析:半主动机器人与徒手技术:随机对照临床试验

Fan Yang, Jianping Chen, Ruijue Cao, Qingwei Tang, Haiyan Liu, Yuchen Zheng, BeiLei Liu, Min Huang, Zhenshi Wang, Yude Ding, Linhong Wang
{"title":"牙科种植体植入准确性的比较分析:半主动机器人与徒手技术:随机对照临床试验","authors":"Fan Yang, Jianping Chen, Ruijue Cao, Qingwei Tang, Haiyan Liu, Yuchen Zheng, BeiLei Liu, Min Huang, Zhenshi Wang, Yude Ding, Linhong Wang","doi":"10.1111/cid.13375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robot-assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi-active robot-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free-hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); median apex deviations were 0.85 ± 0.48 mm and 2.14 ± 1.25 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); and median angular deviations were 2.05 ± 1.33° and 7.36 ± 4.67°, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar significant difference also presented between RAIS and FHIS group in platform vertical/horizontal deviation, apex vertical/horizontal deviation. Additionally, implants with self-tapping characteristics exhibited significantly larger deviations compared with those without self-tapping characteristics in the RAIS group. Both RAIS and FHIS methods demonstrated comparable morbidity and safety pre- and post-operation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results indicated that the RAIS method demonstrated superior accuracy in single dental implant placement compared with the FHIS method. Specifically, RAIS exhibited significantly smaller deviations in platform, apex, and angular positions, as well as platform and apex vertical/horizontal deviations. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi-active robotic versus free-hand techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Fan Yang, Jianping Chen, Ruijue Cao, Qingwei Tang, Haiyan Liu, Yuchen Zheng, BeiLei Liu, Min Huang, Zhenshi Wang, Yude Ding, Linhong Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robot-assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi-active robot-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free-hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); median apex deviations were 0.85 ± 0.48 mm and 2.14 ± 1.25 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); and median angular deviations were 2.05 ± 1.33° and 7.36 ± 4.67°, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar significant difference also presented between RAIS and FHIS group in platform vertical/horizontal deviation, apex vertical/horizontal deviation. Additionally, implants with self-tapping characteristics exhibited significantly larger deviations compared with those without self-tapping characteristics in the RAIS group. Both RAIS and FHIS methods demonstrated comparable morbidity and safety pre- and post-operation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results indicated that the RAIS method demonstrated superior accuracy in single dental implant placement compared with the FHIS method. Specifically, RAIS exhibited significantly smaller deviations in platform, apex, and angular positions, as well as platform and apex vertical/horizontal deviations. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical implant dentistry and related research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical implant dentistry and related research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13375\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:本研究旨在通过一项多中心、随机对照临床试验,比较新型半主动机器人辅助种植手术(RAIS)方法与传统徒手种植手术(FHIS)方法在单颗牙种植体植入方面的准确性:招募并随机分为 RAIS 组和 FHIS 组。对两组患者计划种植体位置和最终种植体位置之间的平台、顶点和角度偏差进行评估。此外,还对器械和手术并发症进行了评估:共有来自四个不同研究中心的 140 位患者(中位年龄:35.35 ± 12.55 岁;43 位男性,97 位女性)接受了 140 个种植体,其中 RAIS 组和 FHIS 组分别有 70 位患者(70 个种植体)和 70 位患者(70 个种植体)。RAIS 组和 FHIS 组的平台偏差中位数分别为 0.76 ± 0.36 毫米和 1.48 ± 0.93 毫米(P 结论:RAIS 和 FHIS 组的平台偏差中位数分别为 0.76 ± 0.36 毫米和 1.48 ± 0.93 毫米:结果表明,与 FHIS 方法相比,RAIS 方法在单颗牙种植体植入方面表现出更高的准确性。具体而言,RAIS 在平台、顶点和角度位置的偏差,以及平台和顶点的垂直/水平偏差方面都明显较小。该临床试验在参与者招募和随机化之前没有注册。https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi-active robotic versus free-hand techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Background: Robot-assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi-active robot-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free-hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Materials and methods: Patients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined.

Results: A total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); median apex deviations were 0.85 ± 0.48 mm and 2.14 ± 1.25 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); and median angular deviations were 2.05 ± 1.33° and 7.36 ± 4.67°, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar significant difference also presented between RAIS and FHIS group in platform vertical/horizontal deviation, apex vertical/horizontal deviation. Additionally, implants with self-tapping characteristics exhibited significantly larger deviations compared with those without self-tapping characteristics in the RAIS group. Both RAIS and FHIS methods demonstrated comparable morbidity and safety pre- and post-operation.

Conclusions: The results indicated that the RAIS method demonstrated superior accuracy in single dental implant placement compared with the FHIS method. Specifically, RAIS exhibited significantly smaller deviations in platform, apex, and angular positions, as well as platform and apex vertical/horizontal deviations. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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