Journal of dentistry · 2025
Comparative accuracy of active and passive dynamic navigation systems in dental implant surgery: A retrospective 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.
Jin Chunxiao, Zhu Zhiyi, Guo Yaping, Zhao Shikai, Huang Cui
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of implant placement using active dynamic navigation systems (ADNS) and passive dynamic navigation systems (PDNS) in clinical environment.
METHODS: This retrospective study (October 2021 to December 2024) evaluated cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data from 58 partially edentulous patients who received 70 implants, with 35 implants placed using an ADNS and 35 using a PDNS. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were automatically superimposed using specialized software to calculate deviations between planned and actual implant positions. Angular, platform, and apex deviations were assessed in both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) measurements.
RESULTS: The 3D deviations for the ADNS versus PDNS were 1.06 ± 0.52 mm versus 1.37 ± 0.62 mm at the implant platform (p< 0.05); 1.12 ± 0.53 mm versus 1.37 ± 0.53 mm (p > 0.05) at the implant apex; 2.60 ± 1.28° versus 3.58 ± 0.98° in angular deviation (p < 0.05). In the 2D analysis, the ADNS group showed significantly lower buccolingual and mesiodistal deviations at the implant platform and lower mesiodistal deviations at the apex compared with the PDNS group. No significant differences were observed in implant deviation distributions across the lingual, buccal, apical, coronal, mesial, or distal directions.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ADNS and PDNS exhibited accuracy within clinically acceptable thresholds across most scenarios. However, the ADNS demonstrated slightly superior implant placement accuracy in the right areas.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ADNS enables more accurate implant placement than PDNS, significantly reducing deviations in complex regions, such as the right posterior and anterior areas. This accuracy lowers risks of anatomical compromise and prosthetic complications, supporting the clinical preference for ADNS in challenging cases.
METHODS: This retrospective study (October 2021 to December 2024) evaluated cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data from 58 partially edentulous patients who received 70 implants, with 35 implants placed using an ADNS and 35 using a PDNS. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were automatically superimposed using specialized software to calculate deviations between planned and actual implant positions. Angular, platform, and apex deviations were assessed in both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) measurements.
RESULTS: The 3D deviations for the ADNS versus PDNS were 1.06 ± 0.52 mm versus 1.37 ± 0.62 mm at the implant platform (p< 0.05); 1.12 ± 0.53 mm versus 1.37 ± 0.53 mm (p > 0.05) at the implant apex; 2.60 ± 1.28° versus 3.58 ± 0.98° in angular deviation (p < 0.05). In the 2D analysis, the ADNS group showed significantly lower buccolingual and mesiodistal deviations at the implant platform and lower mesiodistal deviations at the apex compared with the PDNS group. No significant differences were observed in implant deviation distributions across the lingual, buccal, apical, coronal, mesial, or distal directions.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ADNS and PDNS exhibited accuracy within clinically acceptable thresholds across most scenarios. However, the ADNS demonstrated slightly superior implant placement accuracy in the right areas.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ADNS enables more accurate implant placement than PDNS, significantly reducing deviations in complex regions, such as the right posterior and anterior areas. This accuracy lowers risks of anatomical compromise and prosthetic complications, supporting the clinical preference for ADNS in challenging cases.