Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Applied Research of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Huangshadadao Road 39, 510182, Guangzhou, China.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Applied Research of Oral Regenerative Medicine, Huangshadadao Road 39, 510182, Guangzhou, China; Department of Stomatology, the Eighth People Hospital of Guangzhou, Huayinglu Road 8, 510060, Guangzhou, China.
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Sep;122(4):343-348. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2020.11.008. Epub 2020 Dec 8.
The study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted systems (CAS) in a partially edentulous mandible model.
MATERIALS & METHODS: A total of 80 implants was placed in mandible models. The implants were placed using either static or dynamic computer-assisted system. Deviations of implant hex, apex and angulation were measured between preoperative planning and postoperative CBCT in planning software.
The mean deviations of implant hex, apex and angulation in static CAS group were 1.15 ± 0.34 mm, 1.37 ± 0.38 mm and 2.60 ± 1.11 degree, while in dynamic CAS group were 0.40 ± 0.41 mm, 0.34 ± 0.33 mm and 0.97 ± 1.21 degree, respectively. Implant placement with dynamic CAS showed less deviations of shoulder, apex and angulation than with static CAS significantly.
The implant accuracy using CAS system could be influenced by the guiding technique.
本研究旨在比较在部分无牙颌模型中，静态和动态计算机辅助系统（CAS）在种植体植入中的准确性。
将 80 枚种植体植入下颌骨模型中。使用静态或动态计算机辅助系统来放置种植体。在术前规划软件中测量种植体六角、根尖和角度在术前规划和术后 CBCT 之间的偏差。
静态 CAS 组种植体六角、根尖和角度的平均偏差分别为 1.15±0.34mm、1.37±0.38mm 和 2.60±1.11 度，而动态 CAS 组分别为 0.40±0.41mm、0.34±0.33mm 和 0.97±1.21 度。与静态 CAS 相比，动态 CAS 引导种植体植入时肩、根尖和角度的偏差更小。
CAS 系统中种植体的准确性可能会受到引导技术的影响。
