Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Department of Oral Implantology, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Head Face Med. 2024 May 14;20(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s13005-024-00433-1.
BACKGROUND: Computer-guided implant surgery has improved the quality of implant treatment by facilitating the placement of implants in a more accurate manner. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant placement in a clinical setting using three techniques: dynamic navigation, static surgical guides, and freehand placement. We also investigated potential factors influencing accuracy to provide a comprehensive evaluation of each technique's advantages and disadvantages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four implants in 65 patients were included in this prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: dynamic navigation, static surgical guides, or freehand placement. Implants were placed using a prosthetically oriented digital implant planning approach, and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed on preoperative plans to measure accuracy. Seven deviation values were calculated, including angular, platform, and apical deviations. Demographic and consistency analyses were performed, along with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests for deviation values. RESULTS: The mean global platform, global apical, and angular deviations were 0.99 mm (SD 0.52), 1.14 mm (SD 0.56), and 3.66° (SD 1.64°) for the dynamic navigation group; 0.92 mm (SD 0.36), 1.06 mm (SD 0.47), and 2.52° (SD 1.18°) for the surgical guide group; and 1.36 mm (SD 0.62), 1.73 mm (SD 0.66), and 5.82° (SD 2.79°) for the freehand group. Both the dynamic navigation and surgical guide groups exhibited statistically significant differences in all values except depth deviations compared to the freehand group (p < 0.05), whereas only the angular deviation showed a significant difference between the dynamic navigation and surgical guide groups (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the superior accuracy and consistency of dynamic navigation and static surgical guides compared to freehand placement in implant surgery. Dynamic navigation offers precision and flexibility. However, it comes with cost and convenience considerations. Future research should focus on improving its practicality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Register-Medical Research Foundation of Thailand (MRF) with the TCTR identification number TCTR20230804001 on 04/08/2023. It was also conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional ethics committee at the Xian Jiaotong University Hospital of Stomatology, Xian, China (xjkqII[2021] No: 043). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
背景:计算机引导的种植手术通过更精确地放置种植体,提高了种植治疗的质量。本研究旨在评估三种技术(动态导航、静态手术导板和徒手放置)在临床环境下种植体放置的准确性。我们还研究了影响准确性的潜在因素,以全面评估每种技术的优缺点。
材料与方法:本前瞻性研究纳入了 65 名患者的 94 个种植体。患者被随机分配到三组:动态导航组、静态手术导板组和徒手放置组。使用基于修复体方向的数字化种植体规划方法放置种植体,并对术后 CBCT 扫描与术前计划进行叠加,以测量准确性。计算了七个偏差值,包括角度、平台和根尖偏差。进行了人口统计学和一致性分析,以及对偏差值进行单因素方差分析和事后检验。
结果:动态导航组的总体平台、总体根尖和角度偏差的平均值分别为 0.99 mm(SD 0.52)、1.14 mm(SD 0.56)和 3.66°(SD 1.64°);手术导板组分别为 0.92 mm(SD 0.36)、1.06 mm(SD 0.47)和 2.52°(SD 1.18°);徒手组分别为 1.36 mm(SD 0.62)、1.73 mm(SD 0.66)和 5.82°(SD 2.79°)。与徒手组相比,动态导航组和手术导板组在所有值上均有统计学差异,除了深度偏差(p<0.05),而只有角度偏差在动态导航组和手术导板组之间有显著差异(p=0.002)。
结论:本研究结果表明,在种植手术中,与徒手放置相比,动态导航和静态手术导板具有更高的准确性和一致性。动态导航具有精确性和灵活性。然而,它存在成本和便利性方面的考虑。未来的研究应侧重于提高其实用性。
研究注册:本研究在泰国临床试验注册中心-医学研究基金会(MRF)进行了回顾性注册,注册号为 TCTR20230804001,于 2023 年 8 月 4 日注册。本研究符合《赫尔辛基宣言》,并获得了中国西安交通大学口腔医院机构伦理委员会的批准(xjkqII[2021] No: 043)。所有参与者均签署了书面知情同意书。
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017-7
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024-10
Clin Oral Investig. 2021-5
J Clin Med. 2024-10-23
Periodontol 2000. 2022-2
Dent J (Basel). 2021-5-10
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2021-9-1
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021-2