MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of dentistry · 2024
Accuracy of implant placement using a mixed reality-based dynamic navigation system versus static computer-assisted and freehand surgery: An in Vitro study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Shusterman Ariel, Nashef Rizan, Tecco Simona, Mangano Carlo, Lerner Henriette, Mangano Francesco Guido
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement in partially edentulous maxillary models using a mixed reality-based dynamic navigation (MR-DN) system to conventional static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) and a freehand (FH) method.
METHODS: Forty-five partially edentulous models (with teeth missing in positions #15, #16 and #25) were assigned to three groups (15 per group). The same experienced operator performed the model surgeries using an MR-DN system (group 1), s-CAIS (group 2) and FH (group 3). In total, 135 dental implants were placed (45 per group). The primary outcomes were the linear coronal deviation (entry error; En), apical deviation (apex error; Ap), XY and Z deviations, and angular deviation (An) between the planned and actual (post-surgery) position of the implants in the models. These deviations were computed as the distances between the stereolithographic (STL) files for the planned implants and placed implants captured with an intraoral scanner.
RESULTS: Across the three implant sites, the MR-DN system was significantly more accurate than the FH method (in XY, Z, En, Ap and An) and s-CAIS (in Z, Ap and An), respectively. However, S-CAIS was more accurate than MR-DN in XY, and no difference was found between MR-DN and s-CAIS in En.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study (in vitro design, only partially edentulous models), implant placement accuracy with MR-DN was superior to that of FH and similar to that of s-CAIS.
STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In vitro, MR-DN showed greater accuracy in implant positioning than FH, and similar accuracy to s-CAIS: it could, therefore, represent a new option for the surgeon. However, clinical studies are needed to determine the feasibility of MR-DN.
METHODS: Forty-five partially edentulous models (with teeth missing in positions #15, #16 and #25) were assigned to three groups (15 per group). The same experienced operator performed the model surgeries using an MR-DN system (group 1), s-CAIS (group 2) and FH (group 3). In total, 135 dental implants were placed (45 per group). The primary outcomes were the linear coronal deviation (entry error; En), apical deviation (apex error; Ap), XY and Z deviations, and angular deviation (An) between the planned and actual (post-surgery) position of the implants in the models. These deviations were computed as the distances between the stereolithographic (STL) files for the planned implants and placed implants captured with an intraoral scanner.
RESULTS: Across the three implant sites, the MR-DN system was significantly more accurate than the FH method (in XY, Z, En, Ap and An) and s-CAIS (in Z, Ap and An), respectively. However, S-CAIS was more accurate than MR-DN in XY, and no difference was found between MR-DN and s-CAIS in En.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study (in vitro design, only partially edentulous models), implant placement accuracy with MR-DN was superior to that of FH and similar to that of s-CAIS.
STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In vitro, MR-DN showed greater accuracy in implant positioning than FH, and similar accuracy to s-CAIS: it could, therefore, represent a new option for the surgeon. However, clinical studies are needed to determine the feasibility of MR-DN.