Graduate student, Department of Esthetic restorative and Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Mar;131(3):436-442. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.038. Epub 2022 Mar 18.
Various static implant planning software packages have been developed for the purpose of static computer-assisted implant surgery. However, how different software programs affect the accuracy of implant placement is unclear.
The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate and examine the difference in posterior implant positioning between the planned and placed positions when inexperienced operators, following a fully guided implant surgery protocol, used 2 static implant planning software packages.
Twenty-four participants who needed single posterior implant placement were randomly divided into 2 groups based on the used implant planning software program (coDiagnostiX, n=12; Implant Studio, n=12). The dataset of the placed implant position, generated by digitizing the implant impression, was superimposed on the planned implant position. The number of horizontal, angular, and vertical deviations of the placed implants were measured for each software package and statistically analyzed with the independent t test (α=.05).
The coDiagnostiX group presented with a mean horizontal deviation at the entry point (DE) of 1.07 ±0.36 mm, mean angular deviation (DA) of 3.52 ±1.64 degrees, and mean depth deviation (DD) of -0.71 ±0.29 mm, while the mean DE, mean DA, and mean DD in the Implant Studio group were 0.97 ±0.33 mm, 3.77 ±2.16 degrees, and -0.84 ±0.30 mm, respectively. Statistically, no significant differences were found between coDiagnostiX and Implant Studio programs for all these results (P>.05).
Acceptable accuracy of implant positioning can be expected by inexperienced operators if they follow the guidelines of either of the 2 software packages. Both the coDiagnostiX and Implant Studio programs showed similar results, with a shallower than planned implant depth of 0.71 and 0.84 mm, respectively.
已经开发了各种静态植入物规划软件包，目的是进行静态计算机辅助植入物手术。然而，不同的软件程序如何影响植入物放置的准确性尚不清楚。
本临床研究的目的是评估和检查在经验不足的操作人员遵循完全引导的植入物手术方案的情况下，使用 2 种静态植入物规划软件包时，在后牙区植入物的定位方面，计划位置与放置位置之间的差异。
根据使用的植入物规划软件程序（coDiagnostiX，n=12；Implant Studio，n=12），将 24 名需要单颗后牙植入物的参与者随机分为 2 组。通过数字化植入物印模生成放置植入物的位置数据集，并将其与计划植入物位置叠加。测量每个软件包的植入物放置的水平、角度和垂直偏差数量，并使用独立 t 检验（α=.05）进行统计分析。
coDiagnostiX 组的入口点（DE）的平均水平偏差为 1.07±0.36mm，平均角度偏差（DA）为 3.52±1.64 度，平均深度偏差（DD）为-0.71±0.29mm，而 Implant Studio 组的平均 DE、平均 DA 和平均 DD 分别为 0.97±0.33mm、3.77±2.16 度和-0.84±0.30mm。统计上，这两个软件包之间在所有这些结果上均无显著差异（P>.05）。
如果经验不足的操作人员遵循这两个软件包中的任何一个的指南，则可以预期植入物定位具有可接受的准确性。coDiagnostiX 和 Implant Studio 程序都显示出相似的结果，分别为计划植入物深度浅 0.71 和 0.84mm。
