Journal of dentistry · 2025
Feasibility and accuracy of semi-active robot-assisted porcelain veneer tooth preparation: An in vitro study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Li Yi, Zhou Yin, Lyu Jizhe, Cao Xunning, Tan Jianguo, Liu Xiaoqiang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of semi-active robot-assisted porcelain veneer tooth preparation.
METHODS: In total, 20 right maxillary central incisors were randomly allocated into two groups based on the preparation technique: robot and freehand (n = 10 per group). In the robot group, intraoral scanning data of a typodont with a marker were imported into robotic planning software to design a uniform 0.5-mm veneer preparation. A robotic arm equipped with a high-speed handpiece executed the preparation based on the preoperative design. In the freehand group, an experienced prosthodontist used a 0.5-mm depth-cutting diamond bur to perform the preparation manually. Post-preparation, all teeth were scanned to obtain three-dimensional data. Preparation accuracy was evaluated by calculating the root mean square (RMS) discrepancies across overall, marginal, and internal regions, with the internal region further divided into cervical, middle, and incisal thirds. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Porcelain veneer preparations were completed in vitro using the semi-active robotic system. The robot-assisted group exhibited significantly higher overall RMS discrepancy (0.30 ± 0.03 mm) compared to the freehand group (0.19 ± 0.02 mm; P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed across all evaluated regions (P < 0.05), including the marginal region, cervical, middle, and incisal thirds. The marginal areas exhibited the greatest RMS values in both groups, indicating lower precision in these regions.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted tooth preparation demonstrated slightly lower accuracy than that achieved by experienced operators using freehand techniques. In both groups, the marginal region exhibited the greatest deviation, indicating precision was lowest in this area.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICATIONS: The semi-active robotic system is capable of performing porcelain veneer preparations with clinically acceptable accuracy, offering a promising and effective approach for digital esthetic dentistry.
METHODS: In total, 20 right maxillary central incisors were randomly allocated into two groups based on the preparation technique: robot and freehand (n = 10 per group). In the robot group, intraoral scanning data of a typodont with a marker were imported into robotic planning software to design a uniform 0.5-mm veneer preparation. A robotic arm equipped with a high-speed handpiece executed the preparation based on the preoperative design. In the freehand group, an experienced prosthodontist used a 0.5-mm depth-cutting diamond bur to perform the preparation manually. Post-preparation, all teeth were scanned to obtain three-dimensional data. Preparation accuracy was evaluated by calculating the root mean square (RMS) discrepancies across overall, marginal, and internal regions, with the internal region further divided into cervical, middle, and incisal thirds. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance followed by Bonferroni post hoc testing (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Porcelain veneer preparations were completed in vitro using the semi-active robotic system. The robot-assisted group exhibited significantly higher overall RMS discrepancy (0.30 ± 0.03 mm) compared to the freehand group (0.19 ± 0.02 mm; P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed across all evaluated regions (P < 0.05), including the marginal region, cervical, middle, and incisal thirds. The marginal areas exhibited the greatest RMS values in both groups, indicating lower precision in these regions.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted tooth preparation demonstrated slightly lower accuracy than that achieved by experienced operators using freehand techniques. In both groups, the marginal region exhibited the greatest deviation, indicating precision was lowest in this area.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICATIONS: The semi-active robotic system is capable of performing porcelain veneer preparations with clinically acceptable accuracy, offering a promising and effective approach for digital esthetic dentistry.