Jin He, Qinmeng Zhang, Xueting Wang, Mengdie Fu, Hui Zhang, Luyao Song, Rui Pu, Zhiwei Jiang, Guoli Yang
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
