新临床医生在窄脊中静态计算机辅助种植体放置的准确性。

Q1 Dentistry
Jaafar Abduo, Radhwan Himmadi Hasan, Douglas Lau
{"title":"新临床医生在窄脊中静态计算机辅助种植体放置的准确性。","authors":"Jaafar Abduo, Radhwan Himmadi Hasan, Douglas Lau","doi":"10.1055/s-0045-1802949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical impact of implant placement by novice implant clinicians in the narrow anterior ridge by fully guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placements.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> A maxillary surgical model with missing incisors and a narrow ridge was designed. Two implants were planned in the lateral incisor locations to receive screw-retained implant prosthesis. Fifteen novice implant clinicians placed implants according to every placement. Angle, vertical and horizontal platform, and horizontal apex deviations from the planned implant were measured. The clinical impact evaluation aimed to relate the position of each placed implant to (1) periimplant bone dimension after implant placement and (2) the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The FG implants were more accurate than PG implants at the angle (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and maximum horizontal apex deviations (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and were more accurate than FH implants for all comparisons (<i>p</i> = 0.001). The PG implants were superior to FH implants at the maximal horizontal platform deviation (<i>p</i> = 0.001). All FG implants were fully covered with bone and could be restored with screw-retained prostheses. One PG implant (3.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one PG implant (3.3%) could not be restored with screw-retained prosthesis. Seven FH implants (23.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one FH implant (3.3%) suffered from dehiscence. Seven FH implants (23.3%) were not restorable with screw-retained prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> For novice clinicians, a significantly greater accuracy was observed for FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements. FH implants experienced significant compromise of periimplant bone dimension and the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p>","PeriodicalId":12028,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Placement in Narrow Ridge by Novice Clinicians.\",\"authors\":\"Jaafar Abduo, Radhwan Himmadi Hasan, Douglas Lau\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0045-1802949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical impact of implant placement by novice implant clinicians in the narrow anterior ridge by fully guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placements.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> A maxillary surgical model with missing incisors and a narrow ridge was designed. Two implants were planned in the lateral incisor locations to receive screw-retained implant prosthesis. Fifteen novice implant clinicians placed implants according to every placement. Angle, vertical and horizontal platform, and horizontal apex deviations from the planned implant were measured. The clinical impact evaluation aimed to relate the position of each placed implant to (1) periimplant bone dimension after implant placement and (2) the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The FG implants were more accurate than PG implants at the angle (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and maximum horizontal apex deviations (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and were more accurate than FH implants for all comparisons (<i>p</i> = 0.001). The PG implants were superior to FH implants at the maximal horizontal platform deviation (<i>p</i> = 0.001). All FG implants were fully covered with bone and could be restored with screw-retained prostheses. One PG implant (3.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one PG implant (3.3%) could not be restored with screw-retained prosthesis. Seven FH implants (23.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one FH implant (3.3%) suffered from dehiscence. Seven FH implants (23.3%) were not restorable with screw-retained prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> For novice clinicians, a significantly greater accuracy was observed for FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements. FH implants experienced significant compromise of periimplant bone dimension and the prosthesis retention mechanism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802949\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1802949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估临床种植新手在狭窄前牙槽嵴采用完全引导(FG)、导航引导(PG)和徒手(FH)放置种植体的准确性和临床影响。材料与方法:设计缺门牙窄脊上颌手术模型。两个种植体计划在侧切牙位置接受螺钉保留种植体假体。15名临床种植新手根据每个位置放置种植体。测量角度,垂直和水平平台,水平尖与计划种植体的偏差。临床影响评估旨在将每个放置的种植体的位置与(1)种植体放置后种植体周围骨尺寸和(2)假体保留机制联系起来。结果:FG种植体在角度(p = 0.001)和最大水平尖偏差(p = 0.001)上均优于PG种植体,在所有比较中均优于FH种植体(p = 0.001)。PG种植体在最大水平平台偏差上优于FH种植体(p = 0.001)。所有FG种植体均被骨完全覆盖,可以用螺钉保留的假体修复。1个PG种植体(3.3%)在顶端有开窗,1个PG种植体(3.3%)不能用螺钉保留假体修复。7个FH种植体(23.3%)在顶端开窗,1个FH种植体(3.3%)出现裂孔。7个FH种植体(23.3%)无法用螺钉保留假体修复。结论:对于临床新手来说,FG放置的准确性明显更高,其次是PG和FH放置。FH种植体在种植周骨尺寸和假体固位机制方面存在明显的妥协。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Placement in Narrow Ridge by Novice Clinicians.

Objective:  This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical impact of implant placement by novice implant clinicians in the narrow anterior ridge by fully guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placements.

Materials and methods:  A maxillary surgical model with missing incisors and a narrow ridge was designed. Two implants were planned in the lateral incisor locations to receive screw-retained implant prosthesis. Fifteen novice implant clinicians placed implants according to every placement. Angle, vertical and horizontal platform, and horizontal apex deviations from the planned implant were measured. The clinical impact evaluation aimed to relate the position of each placed implant to (1) periimplant bone dimension after implant placement and (2) the prosthesis retention mechanism.

Results:  The FG implants were more accurate than PG implants at the angle (p = 0.001) and maximum horizontal apex deviations (p = 0.001), and were more accurate than FH implants for all comparisons (p = 0.001). The PG implants were superior to FH implants at the maximal horizontal platform deviation (p = 0.001). All FG implants were fully covered with bone and could be restored with screw-retained prostheses. One PG implant (3.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one PG implant (3.3%) could not be restored with screw-retained prosthesis. Seven FH implants (23.3%) had fenestration at the apex, and one FH implant (3.3%) suffered from dehiscence. Seven FH implants (23.3%) were not restorable with screw-retained prosthesis.

Conclusion:  For novice clinicians, a significantly greater accuracy was observed for FG placement, followed by PG and FH placements. FH implants experienced significant compromise of periimplant bone dimension and the prosthesis retention mechanism.

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
European Journal of Dentistry
European Journal of Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
161
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Dentistry is the official journal of the Dental Investigations Society, based in Turkey. It is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, Open Access, multi-disciplinary international journal addressing various aspects of dentistry. The journal''s board consists of eminent investigators in dentistry from across the globe and presents an ideal international composition. The journal encourages its authors to submit original investigations, reviews, and reports addressing various divisions of dentistry including oral pathology, prosthodontics, endodontics, orthodontics etc. It is available both online and in print.
×
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