{"title":"使用徒手、静态计算机辅助、动态计算机辅助和机器人计算机辅助种植系统进行种植牙手术的准确性：体外研究","authors":"Wenbo Zhao, Weiwei Teng, Yucheng Su, Libo Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>The static computer-aided implant system (S-CAIS), dynamic computer-aided implant system (D-CAIS), and robotic computer-aided implant system (R-CAIS) have been used to improve the accuracy of implant placement. However, the accuracy of freehand (FH),S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS implant placement has not been compared and verified under identical conditions.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using S-CAIS, D-CAIS, R-CAIS, and FH techniques under identical conditions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 60 standardized polyurethane resin models with missing mandibular teeth were prepared and divided into 4 groups: FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS, each consisting of 15 models. Preoperative implant planning was performed using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and 2 implants were placed in each model using the FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS techniques, respectively. Postoperatively, CBCT scans were made for analysis of the entry, apical, and angle deviations. The error results among groups were compared using 1-way analysis of variance or a nonparametric test. The Dunnett test was used for post hoc comparison (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean ±standard deviation values for entry deviation were 1.09 ±0.33 mm for the FH group, 0.72 ±0.33 mm for S-CAIS, 0.69 ±0.29 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.48 ±0.18 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean (quartiles) apical deviations were 1.01 (0.94 -1.22) for the FH group, and the mean ±standard deviation values were 0.87 ±0.07 mm for the S-CAIS group, 0.64 ±0.05 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.47 ±0.03 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean ±standard deviation values for angle deviation for the FH group were 2.74 ±0.84 degrees, 1.99 ±0.76 degrees for S-CAIS, 0.85 ±0.46 degrees for D-CAIS, and 0.53 ±0.20 degrees for R-CAIS (P<.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>R-CAIS is a reliable implant placement method, demonstrating better implant accuracy compared with the S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and FH techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of dental implant surgery with freehand, static computer-aided, dynamic computer-aided, and robotic computer-aided implant systems: An in vitro study.\",\"authors\":\"Wenbo Zhao, Weiwei Teng, Yucheng Su, Libo Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>The static computer-aided implant system (S-CAIS), dynamic computer-aided implant system (D-CAIS), and robotic computer-aided implant system (R-CAIS) have been used to improve the accuracy of implant placement. However, the accuracy of freehand (FH),S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS implant placement has not been compared and verified under identical conditions.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using S-CAIS, D-CAIS, R-CAIS, and FH techniques under identical conditions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 60 standardized polyurethane resin models with missing mandibular teeth were prepared and divided into 4 groups: FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS, each consisting of 15 models. Preoperative implant planning was performed using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and 2 implants were placed in each model using the FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS techniques, respectively. Postoperatively, CBCT scans were made for analysis of the entry, apical, and angle deviations. The error results among groups were compared using 1-way analysis of variance or a nonparametric test. The Dunnett test was used for post hoc comparison (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean ±standard deviation values for entry deviation were 1.09 ±0.33 mm for the FH group, 0.72 ±0.33 mm for S-CAIS, 0.69 ±0.29 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.48 ±0.18 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean (quartiles) apical deviations were 1.01 (0.94 -1.22) for the FH group, and the mean ±standard deviation values were 0.87 ±0.07 mm for the S-CAIS group, 0.64 ±0.05 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.47 ±0.03 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean ±standard deviation values for angle deviation for the FH group were 2.74 ±0.84 degrees, 1.99 ±0.76 degrees for S-CAIS, 0.85 ±0.46 degrees for D-CAIS, and 0.53 ±0.20 degrees for R-CAIS (P<.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>R-CAIS is a reliable implant placement method, demonstrating better implant accuracy compared with the S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and FH techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.013\",\"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 Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.013","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}
Accuracy of dental implant surgery with freehand, static computer-aided, dynamic computer-aided, and robotic computer-aided implant systems: An in vitro study.
Statement of problem: The static computer-aided implant system (S-CAIS), dynamic computer-aided implant system (D-CAIS), and robotic computer-aided implant system (R-CAIS) have been used to improve the accuracy of implant placement. However, the accuracy of freehand (FH),S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS implant placement has not been compared and verified under identical conditions.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using S-CAIS, D-CAIS, R-CAIS, and FH techniques under identical conditions.
Material and methods: A total of 60 standardized polyurethane resin models with missing mandibular teeth were prepared and divided into 4 groups: FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS, each consisting of 15 models. Preoperative implant planning was performed using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and 2 implants were placed in each model using the FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS techniques, respectively. Postoperatively, CBCT scans were made for analysis of the entry, apical, and angle deviations. The error results among groups were compared using 1-way analysis of variance or a nonparametric test. The Dunnett test was used for post hoc comparison (α=.05).
Results: The mean ±standard deviation values for entry deviation were 1.09 ±0.33 mm for the FH group, 0.72 ±0.33 mm for S-CAIS, 0.69 ±0.29 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.48 ±0.18 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean (quartiles) apical deviations were 1.01 (0.94 -1.22) for the FH group, and the mean ±standard deviation values were 0.87 ±0.07 mm for the S-CAIS group, 0.64 ±0.05 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.47 ±0.03 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean ±standard deviation values for angle deviation for the FH group were 2.74 ±0.84 degrees, 1.99 ±0.76 degrees for S-CAIS, 0.85 ±0.46 degrees for D-CAIS, and 0.53 ±0.20 degrees for R-CAIS (P<.05).
Conclusions: R-CAIS is a reliable implant placement method, demonstrating better implant accuracy compared with the S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and FH techniques.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
