{"title":"临床及技术参数对引导种植体放置精度的影响。系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"D. Kasradze, E. Segalyte, R. Kubilius","doi":"10.23805/JO.2021.13.04.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim The aim of the present review was to assess scientific literature on influence of clinical and technical parameters of guided implantation on implant position deviations. \nMethods Two reviewers conducted electronic searches on Cochrane and PubMed databases and manual search in databases of relevant scientific journals. The date range was limited to from 2009 through 2019. \nResults In total 36 publications were included for review and subgroup analysis. Meta-analysis revealed mean deviation of 1.14 mm (95% CI: 1.016, 1.268, SE: 0.064) at implant neck, 1.42 mm (95% CI: 1.275, 1.575, SE: 0.072) at implant apex as well as 0.415 mm (95% CI: 0.317, 0.514, SE: 0.096) of mean vertical error and 3.49° (95% CI: 3.228, 3.756, SE: 0.135) of mean angular error. Significantly lower deviations in one or more measurement points were determined in subgroups of partial edentulism, single implantation per guide, mechanical vertical control, mounted drill design and teeth-supported guides. \nConclusion With respect to limitations of the study, it can be concluded that type of edentulism, size of defect, type of vertical control, guide design and type of guide support influence accuracy of computer-assisted guided implantation. Future research should focus on analyzing the advantages of technical parameters of individual static guides in distinct clinical subgroups.","PeriodicalId":42724,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osseointegration","volume":"43 1","pages":"198-219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mr Influence of clinical and technical parameters on accuracy of guided implant placement. Systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"D. Kasradze, E. Segalyte, R. Kubilius\",\"doi\":\"10.23805/JO.2021.13.04.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim The aim of the present review was to assess scientific literature on influence of clinical and technical parameters of guided implantation on implant position deviations. \\nMethods Two reviewers conducted electronic searches on Cochrane and PubMed databases and manual search in databases of relevant scientific journals. The date range was limited to from 2009 through 2019. \\nResults In total 36 publications were included for review and subgroup analysis. Meta-analysis revealed mean deviation of 1.14 mm (95% CI: 1.016, 1.268, SE: 0.064) at implant neck, 1.42 mm (95% CI: 1.275, 1.575, SE: 0.072) at implant apex as well as 0.415 mm (95% CI: 0.317, 0.514, SE: 0.096) of mean vertical error and 3.49° (95% CI: 3.228, 3.756, SE: 0.135) of mean angular error. Significantly lower deviations in one or more measurement points were determined in subgroups of partial edentulism, single implantation per guide, mechanical vertical control, mounted drill design and teeth-supported guides. \\nConclusion With respect to limitations of the study, it can be concluded that type of edentulism, size of defect, type of vertical control, guide design and type of guide support influence accuracy of computer-assisted guided implantation. Future research should focus on analyzing the advantages of technical parameters of individual static guides in distinct clinical subgroups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"198-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osseointegration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2021.13.04.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osseointegration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2021.13.04.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的对临床和技术参数对种植体位置偏差影响的相关文献进行综述。方法两名审稿人分别对Cochrane和PubMed数据库进行电子检索,并对相关科学期刊数据库进行人工检索。日期范围限于2009年至2019年。结果共纳入36篇文献进行综述和亚组分析。meta分析显示,种植体颈部的平均偏差为1.14 mm (95% CI: 1.016, 1.268, SE: 0.064),种植体顶端的平均偏差为1.42 mm (95% CI: 1.275, 1.575, SE: 0.072),平均垂直误差为0.415 mm (95% CI: 0.317, 0.514, SE: 0.096),平均角度误差为3.49°(95% CI: 3.228, 3.756, SE: 0.135)。在部分全牙、单导体种植、机械垂直控制、安装钻头设计和牙齿支撑导体的亚组中,一个或多个测量点的偏差明显较低。结论鉴于本研究的局限性,可以得出结论:牙槽结构类型、缺损大小、垂直控制类型、导向设计和导向支撑类型影响计算机辅助引导种植的精度。未来的研究应侧重于分析不同临床亚群中单个静态导向器技术参数的优势。
Mr Influence of clinical and technical parameters on accuracy of guided implant placement. Systematic review and meta-analysis
Aim The aim of the present review was to assess scientific literature on influence of clinical and technical parameters of guided implantation on implant position deviations.
Methods Two reviewers conducted electronic searches on Cochrane and PubMed databases and manual search in databases of relevant scientific journals. The date range was limited to from 2009 through 2019.
Results In total 36 publications were included for review and subgroup analysis. Meta-analysis revealed mean deviation of 1.14 mm (95% CI: 1.016, 1.268, SE: 0.064) at implant neck, 1.42 mm (95% CI: 1.275, 1.575, SE: 0.072) at implant apex as well as 0.415 mm (95% CI: 0.317, 0.514, SE: 0.096) of mean vertical error and 3.49° (95% CI: 3.228, 3.756, SE: 0.135) of mean angular error. Significantly lower deviations in one or more measurement points were determined in subgroups of partial edentulism, single implantation per guide, mechanical vertical control, mounted drill design and teeth-supported guides.
Conclusion With respect to limitations of the study, it can be concluded that type of edentulism, size of defect, type of vertical control, guide design and type of guide support influence accuracy of computer-assisted guided implantation. Future research should focus on analyzing the advantages of technical parameters of individual static guides in distinct clinical subgroups.