Journal of dentistry · 2025
Evaluation of the accuracy of dynamic navigation versus robot-assisted dental implant placement in models with one missing tooth or multiple missing teeth with a free-end: 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.
Yang Wen, Weng Jin-Long, Sun Feng, Jiao Hai, Ma Fei-Fei, Wu Bin-Zhang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the accuracy of robot-assisted and dynamic navigation systems for dental implant placement in models with either a single missing tooth or multiple consecutive missing teeth at the distal extension.
METHODS: Thirty-two models and 86 implants were utilized. Implant placement was randomly assigned using either a robot-assisted or dynamic navigation system. The accuracy was evaluated by superimposing planned and actual implant positions. The primary study outcome was angular deviation, while secondary outcomes included three-dimensional deviations at the implant entry and apex levels.
RESULTS: Across all models, the robot-assisted group demonstrated a median angular deviation of 1.15°, compared to 1.99° with the dynamic navigation system (P < 0.01). Entry and apex deviations were 0.90 mm vs. 0.92 mm and 1.00 mm vs. 0.99 mm, respectively. In single-tooth cases, significant differences between groups were observed in entry and apex depth deviations (P = 0.038 and P = 0.032, respectively). In models with multiple missing teeth, the robot-assisted system showed significantly lower angular, apex, and apex horizontal deviations than dynamic navigation system (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both approaches yield a high degree of accuracy in vitro for implant placement. However, the robot-assisted approach may offer improved precision, particularly in complex cases involving multiple missing teeth.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The lower deviations in terms of accuracy demonstrated by the robot-assisted approach in the study would have potential benefits for the application of robots in relatively complex implant surgeries.
METHODS: Thirty-two models and 86 implants were utilized. Implant placement was randomly assigned using either a robot-assisted or dynamic navigation system. The accuracy was evaluated by superimposing planned and actual implant positions. The primary study outcome was angular deviation, while secondary outcomes included three-dimensional deviations at the implant entry and apex levels.
RESULTS: Across all models, the robot-assisted group demonstrated a median angular deviation of 1.15°, compared to 1.99° with the dynamic navigation system (P < 0.01). Entry and apex deviations were 0.90 mm vs. 0.92 mm and 1.00 mm vs. 0.99 mm, respectively. In single-tooth cases, significant differences between groups were observed in entry and apex depth deviations (P = 0.038 and P = 0.032, respectively). In models with multiple missing teeth, the robot-assisted system showed significantly lower angular, apex, and apex horizontal deviations than dynamic navigation system (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both approaches yield a high degree of accuracy in vitro for implant placement. However, the robot-assisted approach may offer improved precision, particularly in complex cases involving multiple missing teeth.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The lower deviations in terms of accuracy demonstrated by the robot-assisted approach in the study would have potential benefits for the application of robots in relatively complex implant surgeries.