Suppr超能文献

经验丰富的外科医生进行种植体植入的准确性:在模拟塑料模型中引导式与徒手操作方法的比较

The Accuracy of Implant Placement by Experienced Surgeons: Guided vs Freehand Approach in a Simulated Plastic Model.

作者信息

Vermeulen Jacques

出版信息

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Mar/Apr;32(3):617–624. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5065. Epub 2016 Oct 14.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To investigate the difference in accuracy between freehand and guided single-implant placement in situations with one or more missing teeth as performed by experienced surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 80 implants were placed by 10 experienced clinicians in the anterior site of maxillary models, made of polyamide by selective laser sintering and mounted in a dummy head. Each clinician performed the same four single-implant cases via freehand surgery and then with a three-dimensional fabricated SIMPLANT Guide. Two of the four cases had a single anterior tooth missing and the other two models represented a partially edentulous situation with several missing anterior teeth. For all 80 implants the average vertical, lateral, and angular deviations between the virtually planned and the achieved implant positions were measured based on a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan.

RESULTS

Regarding the whole sample, angular deviation was 7.63 degrees for the freehand method and 2.19 degrees for guided surgery. The mean difference in angular deviation differed significantly between groups and was more than three times larger for the freehand method. Lateral deviation at the coronal level of the implants was 0.42 mm and 1.27 mm for the guided and freehand methods, respectively, and at the apical level was 0.52 mm and 1.28 mm for the guided and freehand methods, respectively; the deviation at the coronal and apical levels was significantly smaller for guided surgery than for the freehand method (P = .001). Differences in the depth deviation at the apical and coronal levels were smaller (guided vs freehand surgery at the coronal level: 0.54 mm vs 0.78 mm; apical level: 0.54 mm vs 0.73 mm) but also of statistical significance (P = .05). Differences in angular, global, and lateral deviations between the clinical situations (single vs multiple missing teeth) were also significantly smaller for guided surgery, whereas the deviations in depth did not reveal any statistically significant difference between both methods for the single-spaced units.

CONCLUSION

In cases of one or more missing teeth in the anterior maxilla, guided surgery gives even experienced surgeons significantly higher predictability and accuracy than freehand surgery in transferring the virtual implant position to a model situation.

摘要

目的

研究经验丰富的外科医生在单颗种植体植入一颗或多颗缺失牙的情况下,徒手植入与导板辅助植入的准确性差异。

材料与方法

10名经验丰富的临床医生在上颌模型的前部植入了总共80颗种植体,该模型由聚酰胺通过选择性激光烧结制成,并安装在模拟头颅中。每位临床医生通过徒手手术,然后使用三维打印的SIMPLANT导板,完成相同的四个单颗种植体病例。四个病例中的两个是单颗上前牙缺失,另外两个模型代表多颗上前牙缺失的部分牙列缺损情况。基于锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT),测量了所有80颗种植体实际植入位置与虚拟计划位置之间的平均垂直、侧向和角度偏差。

结果

对于整个样本,徒手植入的角度偏差为7.63度,导板辅助手术为2.19度。两组之间角度偏差的平均差异具有统计学意义,徒手植入的角度偏差比导板辅助手术大三倍多。种植体冠部水平的侧向偏差,导板辅助植入法为0.42mm,徒手植入法为1.27mm;根尖水平分别为0.52mm和1.28mm;导板辅助手术在冠部和根尖水平的偏差明显小于徒手植入法(P = 0.001)。根尖和冠部水平的深度偏差差异较小(导板辅助手术与徒手植入法在冠部水平:0.54mm对0.78mm;根尖水平:0.54mm对0.73mm),但也具有统计学意义(P = 0.05)。导板辅助手术在临床情况(单颗与多颗缺失牙)之间的角度、整体和侧向偏差差异也明显较小,而对于单间隙单位,两种方法在深度偏差上没有显示出任何统计学上的显著差异。

结论

在上颌前部存在一颗或多颗缺失牙的情况下,在将虚拟种植体位置转移到模型情况时,导板辅助手术比徒手植入手术能为经验丰富的外科医生提供更高的可预测性和准确性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验