Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024
Augmented reality in implantology: Virtual surgical checklist and augmented implant placement.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bochet Quentin, Raoul Gwénaël, Lauwers Ludovic, Nicot Romain
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Aim of the present study was to create a pedagogical checklist for implant surgical protocol with an augmented reality (AR) guided freehand surgery to inexperienced surgeons using a head mounted display (HMD) with tracking.
METHODS: The anatomical model of a patient with two missing mandibular teeth requiring conventional single-tooth implants was selected. The computed tomography (CT) scans were extracted and imported into segmentation and implant planning software. A Patient-specific dental splint through an intermediate strut, supported 3D-printed QR code. A checklist was generated to guide surgical procedure. After tracking, the AR-HMD projects the virtual pre-surgical plan (inferior alveolar nerve (IAN), implant axis, implant location) onto the real 3D-printed anatomical models. The entire drilling sequence was based on the manufacturer's recommendations, on 3D-printed anatomical models. After the implant surgical procedure, CT of the 3D-printed models was performed to compare the actual and simulated implant placements. All procedures in the study were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
RESULTS: In total, two implants were placed in a 3D-printed anatomical model of a female patient who required implant rehabilitation for dental agenesis at the second mandibular premolar positions (#35 and #45). Superimposition of the actual and simulated implants showed high concordance between them.
CONCLUSION: AR in education offers crucial surgical information for novice surgeons in real time. However, the benefits provided by AR in clinical and educational implantology must be demonstrated in other studies involving a larger number of patients, surgeons and apprentices.
METHODS: The anatomical model of a patient with two missing mandibular teeth requiring conventional single-tooth implants was selected. The computed tomography (CT) scans were extracted and imported into segmentation and implant planning software. A Patient-specific dental splint through an intermediate strut, supported 3D-printed QR code. A checklist was generated to guide surgical procedure. After tracking, the AR-HMD projects the virtual pre-surgical plan (inferior alveolar nerve (IAN), implant axis, implant location) onto the real 3D-printed anatomical models. The entire drilling sequence was based on the manufacturer's recommendations, on 3D-printed anatomical models. After the implant surgical procedure, CT of the 3D-printed models was performed to compare the actual and simulated implant placements. All procedures in the study were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
RESULTS: In total, two implants were placed in a 3D-printed anatomical model of a female patient who required implant rehabilitation for dental agenesis at the second mandibular premolar positions (#35 and #45). Superimposition of the actual and simulated implants showed high concordance between them.
CONCLUSION: AR in education offers crucial surgical information for novice surgeons in real time. However, the benefits provided by AR in clinical and educational implantology must be demonstrated in other studies involving a larger number of patients, surgeons and apprentices.