Joscha Gabriel Werny,Shengchi Fan,Leonardo Diaz,Bilal Al-Nawas,Keyvan Sagheb,Matthias Gielisch,Eik Schiegnitz
{"title":"在体外研究中评估徒手、静态和动态计算机辅助植入手术的准确性、手术时间和学习曲线。","authors":"Joscha Gabriel Werny,Shengchi Fan,Leonardo Diaz,Bilal Al-Nawas,Keyvan Sagheb,Matthias Gielisch,Eik Schiegnitz","doi":"10.1111/clr.14403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\r\nThis experimental study compared the accuracy of implant insertion using the free-hand (FH) technique, static computer-aided surgery (S-CAIS), or dynamic computer-assisted surgery (D-CAIS) and to evaluate the correlation of learning curves between surgeons' experience and surgical time.\r\n\r\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\r\nThirty-six models were randomly assigned to three groups (FH, n = 12; S-CAIS, n = 12; D-CAIS, n = 12). Each model was planned to receive four implants in the maxillary anterior and posterior regions. Twelve participants, six experienced surgeons, and six dental students were included in this study. The primary outcome was the deviation between the planned and final implant placement from each group. Secondary outcomes were each technique's learning curve regarding surgical time.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe average deviation at implant platform, apex and gradual deviation with FH technique were 1.31 ± 0.88 mm, 1.75 ± 0.9 mm and 6.67° ± 3.70°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in S-CAIS were 0.67 ± 0.32 mm, 1.00 ± 0.39 and 2.66° ± 1.77°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in D-CAIS were 1.14 ± 0.70 mm, 1.23 ± 0.58 and 3.20° ± 2.16°, respectively. Significant discrepancies at the implant platform, implant apex, and angular deviation were found between all surgical methods (p < 0.016). Learning curves were evident after multiple implant insertions using both freehand and S-CAIS.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nThe findings indicate that computer-assisted implant insertion leads to a more precise implant alignment than implants inserted freehand in an experimental set-up.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Accuracy, Surgical Time, and Learning Curve of Freehand, Static, and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in an In Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Joscha Gabriel Werny,Shengchi Fan,Leonardo Diaz,Bilal Al-Nawas,Keyvan Sagheb,Matthias Gielisch,Eik Schiegnitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES\\r\\nThis experimental study compared the accuracy of implant insertion using the free-hand (FH) technique, static computer-aided surgery (S-CAIS), or dynamic computer-assisted surgery (D-CAIS) and to evaluate the correlation of learning curves between surgeons' experience and surgical time.\\r\\n\\r\\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\\r\\nThirty-six models were randomly assigned to three groups (FH, n = 12; S-CAIS, n = 12; D-CAIS, n = 12). Each model was planned to receive four implants in the maxillary anterior and posterior regions. Twelve participants, six experienced surgeons, and six dental students were included in this study. The primary outcome was the deviation between the planned and final implant placement from each group. Secondary outcomes were each technique's learning curve regarding surgical time.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThe average deviation at implant platform, apex and gradual deviation with FH technique were 1.31 ± 0.88 mm, 1.75 ± 0.9 mm and 6.67° ± 3.70°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in S-CAIS were 0.67 ± 0.32 mm, 1.00 ± 0.39 and 2.66° ± 1.77°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in D-CAIS were 1.14 ± 0.70 mm, 1.23 ± 0.58 and 3.20° ± 2.16°, respectively. Significant discrepancies at the implant platform, implant apex, and angular deviation were found between all surgical methods (p < 0.016). Learning curves were evident after multiple implant insertions using both freehand and S-CAIS.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nThe findings indicate that computer-assisted implant insertion leads to a more precise implant alignment than implants inserted freehand in an experimental set-up.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"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://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14403\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14403","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
摘要
目的比较徒手(FH)技术、静态计算机辅助手术(S-CAIS)和动态计算机辅助手术(D-CAIS)植入体的准确性,并评价外科医生经验与手术时间之间的学习曲线的相关性。材料与方法36只模型随机分为3组(FH, n = 12;S-CAIS, n = 12;D-CAIS, n = 12)。每个模型计划在上颌前、后区域植入4个种植体。本研究包括12名参与者,6名经验丰富的外科医生和6名牙科学生。主要结果是各组计划植入与最终植入之间的偏差。次要结果是每种技术与手术时间相关的学习曲线。结果FH技术种植体平台、顶端和逐渐偏差的平均偏差分别为1.31±0.88 mm、1.75±0.9 mm和6.67°±3.70°。S-CAIS种植体平台、尖端和角的平均偏差分别为0.67±0.32 mm、1.00±0.39和2.66°±1.77°。D-CAIS种植体平台、尖端和角的平均偏差分别为1.14±0.70 mm、1.23±0.58和3.20°±2.16°。两种手术方式在种植体平台、种植体顶点和角度偏差上存在显著差异(p < 0.016)。使用徒手和S-CAIS进行多次植入后,学习曲线明显。结论计算机辅助种植体置入比徒手种植体置入更精确的种植体对准。
Evaluation of the Accuracy, Surgical Time, and Learning Curve of Freehand, Static, and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in an In Vitro Study.
OBJECTIVES
This experimental study compared the accuracy of implant insertion using the free-hand (FH) technique, static computer-aided surgery (S-CAIS), or dynamic computer-assisted surgery (D-CAIS) and to evaluate the correlation of learning curves between surgeons' experience and surgical time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty-six models were randomly assigned to three groups (FH, n = 12; S-CAIS, n = 12; D-CAIS, n = 12). Each model was planned to receive four implants in the maxillary anterior and posterior regions. Twelve participants, six experienced surgeons, and six dental students were included in this study. The primary outcome was the deviation between the planned and final implant placement from each group. Secondary outcomes were each technique's learning curve regarding surgical time.
RESULTS
The average deviation at implant platform, apex and gradual deviation with FH technique were 1.31 ± 0.88 mm, 1.75 ± 0.9 mm and 6.67° ± 3.70°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in S-CAIS were 0.67 ± 0.32 mm, 1.00 ± 0.39 and 2.66° ± 1.77°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in D-CAIS were 1.14 ± 0.70 mm, 1.23 ± 0.58 and 3.20° ± 2.16°, respectively. Significant discrepancies at the implant platform, implant apex, and angular deviation were found between all surgical methods (p < 0.016). Learning curves were evident after multiple implant insertions using both freehand and S-CAIS.
CONCLUSION
The findings indicate that computer-assisted implant insertion leads to a more precise implant alignment than implants inserted freehand in an experimental set-up.
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.