Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026
Comparative Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning and CBCT Registration in Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery for Partially Edentulous Patients: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wang Yulan, Chen Jiaxian, Zhao Yaoyu, Shi Bin, Zhang Yufeng, Yan Qi
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the impact of intraoral scanning (IOS) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration on implant positional accuracy in robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring implant placement in the anterior or premolar regions were enrolled and randomly allocated to either a CBCT group or an IOS group at a 1:1 ratio. Implant positional accuracy was assessed by comparing planned versus actual implant positions using global platform deviation, global apex deviation and angular deviation. Subgroup analyses were performed based on jaw position and span length. The implant survival rate and patient satisfaction were recorded at prosthesis delivery. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed-effects modelling.
RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included (16 patients with 25 implants in each group). In the IOS group, the global platform deviation, global apex deviation and angular deviation were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD): 0.89 (0.65) mm, 0.95 (0.77) mm and 1.91 (1.98)°, respectively. In the CBCT group, the corresponding values were 0.88 (0.42) mm, 0.98 (0.46) mm and 1.84 (1.46)°. No statistically significant differences were found between IOS and CBCT groups (p > 0.05) regardless of jaw position or edentulous span. The implant survival rate and patient satisfaction were 100% in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative registration using IOS is non-inferior to CBCT-based registration in implant accuracy for r-CAIS, supporting its application as a radiation-free alternative for registration in partially edentulous patients with sufficient number of stable residual teeth.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2400093045.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring implant placement in the anterior or premolar regions were enrolled and randomly allocated to either a CBCT group or an IOS group at a 1:1 ratio. Implant positional accuracy was assessed by comparing planned versus actual implant positions using global platform deviation, global apex deviation and angular deviation. Subgroup analyses were performed based on jaw position and span length. The implant survival rate and patient satisfaction were recorded at prosthesis delivery. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed-effects modelling.
RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included (16 patients with 25 implants in each group). In the IOS group, the global platform deviation, global apex deviation and angular deviation were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD): 0.89 (0.65) mm, 0.95 (0.77) mm and 1.91 (1.98)°, respectively. In the CBCT group, the corresponding values were 0.88 (0.42) mm, 0.98 (0.46) mm and 1.84 (1.46)°. No statistically significant differences were found between IOS and CBCT groups (p > 0.05) regardless of jaw position or edentulous span. The implant survival rate and patient satisfaction were 100% in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative registration using IOS is non-inferior to CBCT-based registration in implant accuracy for r-CAIS, supporting its application as a radiation-free alternative for registration in partially edentulous patients with sufficient number of stable residual teeth.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2400093045.