Giovanni Giovannini Riso, Javier Flores-Fraile, Gianmarco Perrone, Georgia Tzironi, Ana Belén Lobo Galindo, Cosimo Galletti, Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho
{"title":"计算机辅助导航和增强现实在上颌扩张双皮质微型种植体植入中的评估:一项体外研究。","authors":"Giovanni Giovannini Riso, Javier Flores-Fraile, Gianmarco Perrone, Georgia Tzironi, Ana Belén Lobo Galindo, Cosimo Galletti, Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12070703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the computer-aided static navigation technique (NAV), augmented reality (AR) and freehand placement technique (FHT) for the bicortical orthodontic self-drilling mini-implants for maxillary skeletal expansion (MSE) appliances placed in palate. <b>Material and Methods</b>: A total of 120 bicortical orthodontic self-drilling mini-implants were placed in the palate of ten 3D printed anatomically based polyurethane models of a completely edentulous upper maxilla. The orthodontic mini-implants were randomly assigned to the following placement techniques: (A) computer-aided static navigation technique (<i>n</i> = 40) (NAV), (B) augmented reality device (<i>n</i> = 40) (AR) and (C) conventional freehand technique (<i>n</i> = 40) (FHT). Moreover, two implants were placed in each side of the midpalatal suture in every model according to the digital planification of the expander device. Subsequently, the orthodontic mini-implants were placed and postoperative CBCT scans were performed. Finally, coronal entry-point (mm), apical end-point (mm) and angular deviations (°) were calculated using a <i>t</i>-test. <b>Results</b>: Statistically significant differences were shown at coronal entry-point (<i>p</i> < 0.001), apical end-point (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and angular deviations (<i>p</i> < 0.001) between the three placement techniques of bicortical orthodontic mini-implants. Additionally, statistically significant differences were also shown between the orthodontic mini-implant positions concerning the entry point (<i>p</i> = 0.004) and angular deviation (<i>p</i> = 0.004). <b>Conclusions</b>: The augmented reality placement technique results are more accurate, followed by the computer-aided static navigation technique and the freehand technique for MSE appliances placed in palate.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12293002/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Computer-Aided Navigation and Augmented Reality for Bicortical Mini-Implant Placement in Maxillary Expansion: An In Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni Giovannini Riso, Javier Flores-Fraile, Gianmarco Perrone, Georgia Tzironi, Ana Belén Lobo Galindo, Cosimo Galletti, Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/bioengineering12070703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the computer-aided static navigation technique (NAV), augmented reality (AR) and freehand placement technique (FHT) for the bicortical orthodontic self-drilling mini-implants for maxillary skeletal expansion (MSE) appliances placed in palate. <b>Material and Methods</b>: A total of 120 bicortical orthodontic self-drilling mini-implants were placed in the palate of ten 3D printed anatomically based polyurethane models of a completely edentulous upper maxilla. The orthodontic mini-implants were randomly assigned to the following placement techniques: (A) computer-aided static navigation technique (<i>n</i> = 40) (NAV), (B) augmented reality device (<i>n</i> = 40) (AR) and (C) conventional freehand technique (<i>n</i> = 40) (FHT). Moreover, two implants were placed in each side of the midpalatal suture in every model according to the digital planification of the expander device. Subsequently, the orthodontic mini-implants were placed and postoperative CBCT scans were performed. Finally, coronal entry-point (mm), apical end-point (mm) and angular deviations (°) were calculated using a <i>t</i>-test. <b>Results</b>: Statistically significant differences were shown at coronal entry-point (<i>p</i> < 0.001), apical end-point (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and angular deviations (<i>p</i> < 0.001) between the three placement techniques of bicortical orthodontic mini-implants. Additionally, statistically significant differences were also shown between the orthodontic mini-implant positions concerning the entry point (<i>p</i> = 0.004) and angular deviation (<i>p</i> = 0.004). <b>Conclusions</b>: The augmented reality placement technique results are more accurate, followed by the computer-aided static navigation technique and the freehand technique for MSE appliances placed in palate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioengineering\",\"volume\":\"12 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12293002/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioengineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12070703\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12070703","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of Computer-Aided Navigation and Augmented Reality for Bicortical Mini-Implant Placement in Maxillary Expansion: An In Vitro Study.
The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of the computer-aided static navigation technique (NAV), augmented reality (AR) and freehand placement technique (FHT) for the bicortical orthodontic self-drilling mini-implants for maxillary skeletal expansion (MSE) appliances placed in palate. Material and Methods: A total of 120 bicortical orthodontic self-drilling mini-implants were placed in the palate of ten 3D printed anatomically based polyurethane models of a completely edentulous upper maxilla. The orthodontic mini-implants were randomly assigned to the following placement techniques: (A) computer-aided static navigation technique (n = 40) (NAV), (B) augmented reality device (n = 40) (AR) and (C) conventional freehand technique (n = 40) (FHT). Moreover, two implants were placed in each side of the midpalatal suture in every model according to the digital planification of the expander device. Subsequently, the orthodontic mini-implants were placed and postoperative CBCT scans were performed. Finally, coronal entry-point (mm), apical end-point (mm) and angular deviations (°) were calculated using a t-test. Results: Statistically significant differences were shown at coronal entry-point (p < 0.001), apical end-point (p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p < 0.001) between the three placement techniques of bicortical orthodontic mini-implants. Additionally, statistically significant differences were also shown between the orthodontic mini-implant positions concerning the entry point (p = 0.004) and angular deviation (p = 0.004). Conclusions: The augmented reality placement technique results are more accurate, followed by the computer-aided static navigation technique and the freehand technique for MSE appliances placed in palate.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering