机器人辅助与徒手种植牙手术的准确性、安全性和有效性:一项为期6个月的随访随机对照试验。

IF 5.3 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Jiaxian Chen, Yulan Wang, Yi Bai, Yan Chen, Zhenqi Chen, Qi Yan, Yufeng Zhang
{"title":"机器人辅助与徒手种植牙手术的准确性、安全性和有效性:一项为期6个月的随访随机对照试验。","authors":"Jiaxian Chen,&nbsp;Yulan Wang,&nbsp;Yi Bai,&nbsp;Yan Chen,&nbsp;Zhenqi Chen,&nbsp;Qi Yan,&nbsp;Yufeng Zhang","doi":"10.1111/clr.14413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the implant accuracy, safety, and efficiency between robotic-assisted and freehand dental implant placement with a half-year follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients requiring single-tooth implant restorations were recruited and randomized into two groups: robotic-assisted surgery and freehand implant surgery. The accuracy of implant positioning was compared by assessing immediate postoperative CBCT scans against preoperative planning software. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded, and data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach. The time required for implant placement in each group was documented. A 6-month follow-up measured the implant survival rates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The study included 24 patients (median age 36, 18 female). In the robotic-assisted surgery group, the average platform global deviation, apex global deviation, and angular deviation were 0.70 ± 0.11 mm, 0.70 ± 0.12 mm, and 1.09° ± 0.67°, respectively. In the freehand implant surgery group, these measures were 1.24 ± 0.59 mm, 2.13 ± 1.26 mm, and 7.43° ± 6.12°, respectively, with statistically significant differences. Regarding the duration of surgery, the robotic-assisted surgery group required 18.8 ± 4.89 min. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were similar across both groups, and the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups at the 6-month follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study found that robot-assisted implant placement offers higher accuracy in implant positioning compared to freehand placement, while requiring longer operation times. Future developments should focus on simplifying the registration and design of robot systems to enhance efficiency and facilitate their broader clinical adoption.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"36 5","pages":"662-670"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy, Safety, and Efficiency in Robotic-Assisted vs. Freehand Dental Implant Surgery: A 6-Month Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Jiaxian Chen,&nbsp;Yulan Wang,&nbsp;Yi Bai,&nbsp;Yan Chen,&nbsp;Zhenqi Chen,&nbsp;Qi Yan,&nbsp;Yufeng Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess the implant accuracy, safety, and efficiency between robotic-assisted and freehand dental implant placement with a half-year follow-up.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients requiring single-tooth implant restorations were recruited and randomized into two groups: robotic-assisted surgery and freehand implant surgery. The accuracy of implant positioning was compared by assessing immediate postoperative CBCT scans against preoperative planning software. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded, and data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach. The time required for implant placement in each group was documented. A 6-month follow-up measured the implant survival rates.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study included 24 patients (median age 36, 18 female). In the robotic-assisted surgery group, the average platform global deviation, apex global deviation, and angular deviation were 0.70 ± 0.11 mm, 0.70 ± 0.12 mm, and 1.09° ± 0.67°, respectively. In the freehand implant surgery group, these measures were 1.24 ± 0.59 mm, 2.13 ± 1.26 mm, and 7.43° ± 6.12°, respectively, with statistically significant differences. Regarding the duration of surgery, the robotic-assisted surgery group required 18.8 ± 4.89 min. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were similar across both groups, and the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups at the 6-month follow-up.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study found that robot-assisted implant placement offers higher accuracy in implant positioning compared to freehand placement, while requiring longer operation times. Future developments should focus on simplifying the registration and design of robot systems to enhance efficiency and facilitate their broader clinical adoption.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"36 5\",\"pages\":\"662-670\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-03\",\"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.14413\",\"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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14413","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:通过半年的随访,评估机器人辅助种植体与徒手种植体的准确性、安全性和有效性。方法:招募需要单牙种植体修复的患者,随机分为两组:机器人辅助手术和徒手种植手术。通过评估术后立即CBCT扫描与术前计划软件比较种植体定位的准确性。记录术中和术后并发症,并采用意向治疗方法分析数据。记录各组种植体放置所需的时间。6个月的随访测量了种植体的存活率。结果:研究纳入24例患者(中位年龄36岁,女性18例)。机器人辅助手术组平均平台整体偏差为0.70±0.11 mm,尖端整体偏差为0.70±0.12 mm,角度偏差为1.09°±0.67°。徒手种植组的测量值分别为1.24±0.59 mm、2.13±1.26 mm、7.43°±6.12°,差异有统计学意义。机器人辅助手术组手术时间为18.8±4.89 min。两组术中、术后并发症相似,随访6个月,两组种植体成活率均为100%。结论:本研究发现,与徒手放置相比,机器人辅助种植体放置的种植体定位精度更高,但需要更长的操作时间。未来的发展应侧重于简化机器人系统的注册和设计,以提高效率并促进其更广泛的临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy, Safety, and Efficiency in Robotic-Assisted vs. Freehand Dental Implant Surgery: A 6-Month Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives

To assess the implant accuracy, safety, and efficiency between robotic-assisted and freehand dental implant placement with a half-year follow-up.

Methods

Patients requiring single-tooth implant restorations were recruited and randomized into two groups: robotic-assisted surgery and freehand implant surgery. The accuracy of implant positioning was compared by assessing immediate postoperative CBCT scans against preoperative planning software. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded, and data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach. The time required for implant placement in each group was documented. A 6-month follow-up measured the implant survival rates.

Results

The study included 24 patients (median age 36, 18 female). In the robotic-assisted surgery group, the average platform global deviation, apex global deviation, and angular deviation were 0.70 ± 0.11 mm, 0.70 ± 0.12 mm, and 1.09° ± 0.67°, respectively. In the freehand implant surgery group, these measures were 1.24 ± 0.59 mm, 2.13 ± 1.26 mm, and 7.43° ± 6.12°, respectively, with statistically significant differences. Regarding the duration of surgery, the robotic-assisted surgery group required 18.8 ± 4.89 min. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were similar across both groups, and the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups at the 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions

This study found that robot-assisted implant placement offers higher accuracy in implant positioning compared to freehand placement, while requiring longer operation times. Future developments should focus on simplifying the registration and design of robot systems to enhance efficiency and facilitate their broader clinical adoption.

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
Clinical Oral Implants Research
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信