使用不同动态导航和机器人系统进行牙种植体植入的准确性：一项体外研究。

Accuracy of dental implant placement using different dynamic navigation and robotic systems: an in vitro study.

作者信息

Xu Zonghe, Zhou Lin, Han Bin, Wu Shuang, Xiao Yanjun, Zhang Sihui, Chen Jiang, Guo Jianbin, Wu Dong

机构信息

Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterial, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.

School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350001, China.

出版信息

NPJ Digit Med. 2024 Jul 6;7(1):182. doi: 10.1038/s41746-024-01178-6.

DOI:10.1038/s41746-024-01178-6

PMID:38971937

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11227595/

Abstract

Computer-aided implant surgery has undergone continuous development in recent years. In this study, active and passive systems of dynamic navigation were divided into active dynamic navigation system group and passive dynamic navigation system group (ADG and PDG), respectively. Active, passive and semi-active implant robots were divided into active robot group, passive robot group and semi-active robot group (ARG, PRG and SRG), respectively. Each group placed two implants (FDI tooth positions 31 and 36) in a model 12 times. The accuracy of 216 implants in 108 models were analysed. The coronal deviations of ADG, PDG, ARG, PRG and SRG were 0.85 ± 0.17 mm, 1.05 ± 0.42 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.40 ± 0.16 mm and 0.33 ± 0.14 mm, respectively. The apical deviations of the five groups were 1.11 ± 0.23 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.50 ± 0.19 mm and 0.36 ± 0.16 mm, respectively. The axial deviations of the five groups were 1.78 ± 0.73°, 1.99 ± 1.20°, 0.61 ± 0.25°, 1.04 ± 0.37° and 0.42 ± 0.18°, respectively. The coronal, apical and axial deviations of ADG were higher than those of ARG, PRG and SRG (all P < 0.001). Similarly, the coronal, apical and axial deviations of PDG were higher than those of ARG, PRG, and SRG (all P < 0.001). Dynamic and robotic computer-aided implant surgery may show good implant accuracy in vitro. However, the accuracy and stability of implant robots are higher than those of dynamic navigation systems.

摘要

近年来，计算机辅助种植手术不断发展。在本研究中，动态导航的主动和被动系统分别分为主动动态导航系统组和被动动态导航系统组（ADG和PDG）。主动、被动和半主动种植机器人分别分为主动机器人组、被动机器人组和半主动机器人组（ARG、PRG和SRG）。每组在一个模型中植入两颗种植体（FDI牙位31和36），共进行12次。分析了108个模型中216颗种植体的准确性。ADG、PDG、ARG、PRG和SRG的冠向偏差分别为0.85±0.17mm、1.05±0.42mm、0.29±0.15mm、0.40±0.16mm和0.33±0.14mm。五组的根尖偏差分别为1.11±0.23mm、1.07±0.38mm、0.29±0.15mm、0.50±0.19mm和0.36±0.16mm。五组的轴向偏差分别为1.78±0.73°、1.99±1.20°、0.61±0.25°、1.04±0.37°和0.42±0.18°。ADG的冠向、根尖和轴向偏差高于ARG、PRG和SRG（所有P<0.001）。同样，PDG的冠向、根尖和轴向偏差高于ARG、PRG和SRG（所有P<0.001）。动态和机器人计算机辅助种植手术在体外可能显示出良好的种植准确性。然而，种植机器人的准确性和稳定性高于动态导航系统。