{"title":"两种机器人计算机辅助种植系统定位方法在牙种植中的准确性：一项前瞻性研究","authors":"Libo Zhou, Wenbo Zhao, Minghui Chu, Yucheng Su","doi":"10.1111/cid.70037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Robot-assisted implant surgery has been shown to achieve high levels of accuracy. However, there is currently a paucity of clinical studies evaluating the accuracy of marker-based intraoral scanner (IOS) registration (IR) methods.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the marker-based cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration (CR) method and the IR method in the dental implant in the robotic computer-aided implant system (R-CAIS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included 20 participants, with 10 undergoing implant surgery using the CR method within a robotic system, and the remaining 10 receiving implants using the IR method. Preoperative CBCT images used for implant planning were aligned with the postoperative CBCT images to assess and quantify positional deviations in implant placement. The primary outcome measures were FRE, entry deviation, apical deviation, and angular deviation. A Student's <i>t</i>-test was performed to compare differences between the two groups, with a <i>p</i>-value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The mean ± standard deviation values for FRE were 0.027 ± 0.007 mm for the CR group and 0.031 ± 0.006 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.149). The mean ± standard deviation values for entry deviation were 0.58 ± 0.11 mm for the CR group and 0.53 ± 0.15 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.072). The mean ± standard deviation values for apical deviation were 0.52 ± 0.12 mm for the CR group and 0.50 ± 0.14 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.730). The mean ± standard deviation values for apical deviation were 1.10 ± 0.34 mm for the CR group and 1.17 ± 0.23 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.730).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In R-CAIS, the IR method demonstrated accuracy comparable to that of the CR method, with both methods yielding clinically satisfactory outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Two Robotic Computer-Aided Implant System Registration Methods for Dental Implantation: A Prospective Study\",\"authors\":\"Libo Zhou, Wenbo Zhao, Minghui Chu, Yucheng Su\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.70037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Robot-assisted implant surgery has been shown to achieve high levels of accuracy. However, there is currently a paucity of clinical studies evaluating the accuracy of marker-based intraoral scanner (IOS) registration (IR) methods.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the marker-based cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration (CR) method and the IR method in the dental implant in the robotic computer-aided implant system (R-CAIS).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective study included 20 participants, with 10 undergoing implant surgery using the CR method within a robotic system, and the remaining 10 receiving implants using the IR method. Preoperative CBCT images used for implant planning were aligned with the postoperative CBCT images to assess and quantify positional deviations in implant placement. The primary outcome measures were FRE, entry deviation, apical deviation, and angular deviation. A Student's <i>t</i>-test was performed to compare differences between the two groups, with a <i>p</i>-value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The mean ± standard deviation values for FRE were 0.027 ± 0.007 mm for the CR group and 0.031 ± 0.006 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.149). The mean ± standard deviation values for entry deviation were 0.58 ± 0.11 mm for the CR group and 0.53 ± 0.15 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.072). The mean ± standard deviation values for apical deviation were 0.52 ± 0.12 mm for the CR group and 0.50 ± 0.14 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.730). The mean ± standard deviation values for apical deviation were 1.10 ± 0.34 mm for the CR group and 1.17 ± 0.23 mm for the IR group (<i>p</i> = 0.730).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>In R-CAIS, the IR method demonstrated accuracy comparable to that of the CR method, with both methods yielding clinically satisfactory outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"27 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70037\",\"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":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70037","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}
引用次数: 0
摘要
机器人辅助植入手术已被证明具有很高的准确性。然而，目前缺乏临床研究评估基于标记物的口腔内扫描（IOS）注册（IR）方法的准确性。目的比较基于标记物的锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）配准（CR）方法和红外（IR）方法在机器人计算机辅助种植系统（R-CAIS）种植体中的准确性。材料和方法本回顾性研究包括20名参与者，其中10名在机器人系统内使用CR方法接受种植体手术，其余10名使用IR方法接受种植体。术前用于种植体规划的CBCT图像与术后CBCT图像对齐，以评估和量化种植体放置的位置偏差。主要结局指标为FRE、入路偏差、根尖偏差和角度偏差。采用Student's t检验比较两组间的差异，p值为<； 0.05认为有统计学意义。结果CR组FRE平均±标准差为0.027±0.007 mm， IR组FRE平均±标准差为0.031±0.006 mm （p = 0.149）。CR组的平均±标准偏差为0.58±0.11 mm， IR组的平均±标准偏差为0.53±0.15 mm （p = 0.072）。CR组根尖偏差均值±标准差为0.52±0.12 mm， IR组根尖偏差均值±标准差为0.50±0.14 mm （p = 0.730）。CR组根尖偏差均值±标准差为1.10±0.34 mm， IR组根尖偏差均值±标准差为1.17±0.23 mm （p = 0.730）。结论在R-CAIS中，IR方法的准确性与CR方法相当，两种方法均获得令人满意的临床结果。
Accuracy of Two Robotic Computer-Aided Implant System Registration Methods for Dental Implantation: A Prospective Study
Background
Robot-assisted implant surgery has been shown to achieve high levels of accuracy. However, there is currently a paucity of clinical studies evaluating the accuracy of marker-based intraoral scanner (IOS) registration (IR) methods.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the marker-based cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration (CR) method and the IR method in the dental implant in the robotic computer-aided implant system (R-CAIS).
Materials and Methods
This retrospective study included 20 participants, with 10 undergoing implant surgery using the CR method within a robotic system, and the remaining 10 receiving implants using the IR method. Preoperative CBCT images used for implant planning were aligned with the postoperative CBCT images to assess and quantify positional deviations in implant placement. The primary outcome measures were FRE, entry deviation, apical deviation, and angular deviation. A Student's t-test was performed to compare differences between the two groups, with a p-value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results
The mean ± standard deviation values for FRE were 0.027 ± 0.007 mm for the CR group and 0.031 ± 0.006 mm for the IR group (p = 0.149). The mean ± standard deviation values for entry deviation were 0.58 ± 0.11 mm for the CR group and 0.53 ± 0.15 mm for the IR group (p = 0.072). The mean ± standard deviation values for apical deviation were 0.52 ± 0.12 mm for the CR group and 0.50 ± 0.14 mm for the IR group (p = 0.730). The mean ± standard deviation values for apical deviation were 1.10 ± 0.34 mm for the CR group and 1.17 ± 0.23 mm for the IR group (p = 0.730).
Conclusions
In R-CAIS, the IR method demonstrated accuracy comparable to that of the CR method, with both methods yielding clinically satisfactory outcomes.
期刊介绍：
The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal.
The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to:
New scientific developments relating to bone
Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues
Computer aided implant designs
Computer aided prosthetic designs
Immediate implant loading
Immediate implant placement
Materials relating to bone induction and conduction
New surgical methods relating to implant placement
New materials and methods relating to implant restorations
Methods for determining implant stability
A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
