Guentsch Arndt, An Hongseok, Dentino Andrew R
Professor of Periodontics and Department Chair, Department of Surgical Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Assistant Professor of Restorative Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Apr;33(4):441-450. doi: 10.1111/clr.13904. Epub 2022 Feb 19.
The aim of this in vitro study was to determine accuracy defined by trueness and precision of computer-assisted implant surgery comparing two guided surgery kits designed for either closed sleeves or open sleeves with a lateral window.
Each n=20 implants were placed fully guided (sleeve-bone distance of 2 or 4 mm) in identical replicas using a surgical guide with both closed sleeve or an open sleeve, partially guided, or free hand. The achieved implant position was digitized and compared with the planned position. Trueness and precision were determined. The angular deviation was defined as the primary outcome parameter. The means, standard deviation, and 95%-confidence intervals were analyzed statistically with 1-way ANOVA and the Scheffé procedure.
The accuracy of guided implant placement using closed and open sleeves was comparable when the sleeve-bone distance was 2 mm. Accuracy decreased when the sleeve-bone distance increased in both fully guided groups, more so in the open than in the closed sleeve group. The least accurate method was the free-hand group. Partially guided implant surgery was more accurate than free-hand placement, but less accurate than the fully guided groups with 2-mm sleeve-bone distance.
The closer the sleeve to the bone, the more accurate and precise is computer-assisted implant surgery using a closed system and a system using open sleeves. Partially guided implant surgery using only the static guide for the pilot drill is less accurate than both fully guided approaches, but more accurate than free-hand surgery.
本体外研究的目的是通过比较两种分别为封闭套筒或带有侧窗的开放套筒设计的导向手术套件,确定计算机辅助种植手术的准确性,准确性由真实性和精密度定义。
使用封闭套筒或开放套筒的手术导板,将每组n = 20颗种植体完全导向(套筒与骨的距离为2或4毫米)植入相同的复制体中,部分导向或徒手植入。将获得的种植体位置数字化并与计划位置进行比较。确定真实性和精密度。将角度偏差定义为主要结果参数。使用单因素方差分析和谢费程序对均值、标准差和95%置信区间进行统计学分析。
当套筒与骨的距离为2毫米时,使用封闭和开放套筒进行导向种植体植入的准确性相当。在两个完全导向组中,当套筒与骨的距离增加时,准确性降低,开放套筒组比封闭套筒组更明显。最不准确的方法是徒手组。部分导向种植手术比徒手植入更准确,但比套筒与骨距离为2毫米的完全导向组准确性低。
套筒与骨越接近,使用封闭系统和开放套筒系统的计算机辅助种植手术就越准确和精确。仅使用导向钻静态导板的部分导向种植手术比两种完全导向方法的准确性都低,但比徒手手术更准确。