In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery

IF 3.7 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1111/cid.13302

Jin He, Qinmeng Zhang, Xueting Wang, Mengdie Fu, Hui Zhang, Luyao Song, Rui Pu, Zhiwei Jiang, Guoli Yang

{"title":"In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery","authors":"Jin He, Qinmeng Zhang, Xueting Wang, Mengdie Fu, Hui Zhang, Luyao Song, Rui Pu, Zhiwei Jiang, Guoli Yang","doi":"10.1111/cid.13302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the accuracy of autonomous robotic and fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) performed on models and patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study was divided into in vitro and in vivo sections. In vitro, 80 operators were assigned to two groups randomly. Forty operators performed forty autonomous robotic implant (ARI group) surgeries and the remaining forty operators carried out forty fully guided sCAIS (FGI group) surgeries on maxillary models, respectively. Each operator placed an implant in one maxillary model. In vivo, 60 patients with 113 implants from 2019 to 2023 (ARI group: 32 patients, 58 implants; FGI group: 28 patients, 55 implants) receiving implant surgeries were incorporated in this retrospective research. The preoperative and postoperative cone beam computer tomographs (CBCTs) were utilized to estimate the linear deviations and angular deviations in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) space. The Pearson's chi-square test, Shapiro–Wilk test, Student's <i>t</i> test, Mann–Whitney <i>U</i> test and mixed models were applied, and <i>p</i> <0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In vitro, a total of 80 implants were enrolled and significant differences were found between the two groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001): The 3D deviation at the platform of ARI and FGI group was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.50 ± 1.46 mm, respectively, at the apex was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.78 ± 1.35 mm, respectively, and angle was 1.01 ± 0.87° and 2.93 ± 1.59°, respectively. Also, except for mesiodistal deviation at the implant platform, the rest linear and angular deviations in the ARI group were significantly lower than those in the FGI group in 2D space (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In vivo, a significantly lower mean of angular deviation (0.95 ± 0.50°, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and the linear deviation at both platform (0.45 ± 0.28 mm, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and apex (0.47 ± 0.28 mm, <i>p</i> < 0.001) were observed in ARI group when compared to the FGI group (4.31 ± 2.60°; 1.45 ± 1.27 mm; 1.77 ± 1.14 mm).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The use of autonomous robotic technology showed significantly higher accuracy than the fully guided sCAIS.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"26 2","pages":"385-401"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13302","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the accuracy of autonomous robotic and fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) performed on models and patients.

Materials and Methods

This study was divided into in vitro and in vivo sections. In vitro, 80 operators were assigned to two groups randomly. Forty operators performed forty autonomous robotic implant (ARI group) surgeries and the remaining forty operators carried out forty fully guided sCAIS (FGI group) surgeries on maxillary models, respectively. Each operator placed an implant in one maxillary model. In vivo, 60 patients with 113 implants from 2019 to 2023 (ARI group: 32 patients, 58 implants; FGI group: 28 patients, 55 implants) receiving implant surgeries were incorporated in this retrospective research. The preoperative and postoperative cone beam computer tomographs (CBCTs) were utilized to estimate the linear deviations and angular deviations in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) space. The Pearson's chi-square test, Shapiro–Wilk test, Student's t test, Mann–Whitney U test and mixed models were applied, and p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

In vitro, a total of 80 implants were enrolled and significant differences were found between the two groups (p < 0.001): The 3D deviation at the platform of ARI and FGI group was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.50 ± 1.46 mm, respectively, at the apex was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.78 ± 1.35 mm, respectively, and angle was 1.01 ± 0.87° and 2.93 ± 1.59°, respectively. Also, except for mesiodistal deviation at the implant platform, the rest linear and angular deviations in the ARI group were significantly lower than those in the FGI group in 2D space (p < 0.001). In vivo, a significantly lower mean of angular deviation (0.95 ± 0.50°, p < 0.001) and the linear deviation at both platform (0.45 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) and apex (0.47 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) were observed in ARI group when compared to the FGI group (4.31 ± 2.60°; 1.45 ± 1.27 mm; 1.77 ± 1.14 mm).

Conclusions

The use of autonomous robotic technology showed significantly higher accuracy than the fully guided sCAIS.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

自主机器人与全引导静态计算机辅助植入手术的体外和体内准确性对比。

目的评估在模型和患者身上进行的自主机器人和全引导静态计算机辅助种植手术（sCAIS）的准确性：本研究分为体外和体内两部分。在体外，80 名操作员被随机分配到两组。四十名操作员分别在上颌模型上进行四十例自主机器人种植手术（ARI组），其余四十名操作员进行四十例完全引导的sCAIS手术（FGI组）。每位操作员在一个上颌模型上植入一个种植体。在这项回顾性研究中，纳入了从 2019 年到 2023 年接受种植手术的 60 位患者，共 113 个种植体（ARI 组：32 位患者，58 个种植体；FGI 组：28 位患者，55 个种植体）。利用术前和术后锥形束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）来估计二维（2D）和三维（3D）空间的线性偏差和角度偏差。采用了皮尔逊卡方检验、沙皮罗-维尔克检验、学生 t 检验、曼-惠特尼 U 检验和混合模型，P 结果：在体外，共有 80 个种植体参与了研究，发现两组之间存在显著差异（p 结论：使用自主机器人技术的准确性明显高于完全引导的 sCAIS。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.