Journal of dentistry · 2025
Trueness and precision of immediate implant placement using dynamic and robotic computer-assisted techniques at the mandibular molar site: An in vitro study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Wang Wenying, Tao Baoxin, Wang Feng, Wu Yiqun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the trueness and precision of mandibular molar immediate implant placement (IIP) between dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (rCAIS).
METHODS: Ten mandibular models with 40 implant sites, consisting of two types of molar extraction sockets (type B: multiple roots with septal bone; type C: single root without septal bone), were divided into the dCAIS group and the rCAIS group for IIP. The pre- and post-operative CBCT were compared, and the trueness of the implants was measured and statistically analyzed. Precision was evaluated using the Levene test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between dCAIS and rCAIS in 3D or angular deviations. For trueness, the two groups were comparable (p > 0.05) except that rCAIS performed better in the buccolingual dimension (p = 0.003 at the crest and apex) in type C sockets. For precision, Levene's tests (α = 0.05) showed that dCAIS had significantly better precision across all sockets in the apicocoronal direction (p = 0.009 at the crest, p = 0.022 at the apex) and in the mesiodistal direction at the apex (p = 0.021).
CONCLUSIONS: Both dCAIS and rCAIS achieved high trueness and precision for molar IIP. rCAIS achieved higher buccolingual trueness in type C sockets, whereas dCAIS provided greater precision.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both dynamic navigation and robotic-assisted systems achieve high accuracy in mandibular molar immediate implant placement. While rCAIS has an advantage in challenging type C sockets, dCAIS requires intentional adjustment in directions with uneven resistance to achieve optimal outcomes.
METHODS: Ten mandibular models with 40 implant sites, consisting of two types of molar extraction sockets (type B: multiple roots with septal bone; type C: single root without septal bone), were divided into the dCAIS group and the rCAIS group for IIP. The pre- and post-operative CBCT were compared, and the trueness of the implants was measured and statistically analyzed. Precision was evaluated using the Levene test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between dCAIS and rCAIS in 3D or angular deviations. For trueness, the two groups were comparable (p > 0.05) except that rCAIS performed better in the buccolingual dimension (p = 0.003 at the crest and apex) in type C sockets. For precision, Levene's tests (α = 0.05) showed that dCAIS had significantly better precision across all sockets in the apicocoronal direction (p = 0.009 at the crest, p = 0.022 at the apex) and in the mesiodistal direction at the apex (p = 0.021).
CONCLUSIONS: Both dCAIS and rCAIS achieved high trueness and precision for molar IIP. rCAIS achieved higher buccolingual trueness in type C sockets, whereas dCAIS provided greater precision.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both dynamic navigation and robotic-assisted systems achieve high accuracy in mandibular molar immediate implant placement. While rCAIS has an advantage in challenging type C sockets, dCAIS requires intentional adjustment in directions with uneven resistance to achieve optimal outcomes.