Clinical oral implants research · 2025
Accuracy of a Novel Robot-Assisted System and Dynamic Navigation System for Dental Implant Placement: A Clinical 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.
Chen Jianping, Ding Yude, Cao Ruijue, Zheng Yuchen, Shen Liheng, Wang Linhong, Yang Fan
Аннотация
AIM: This clinical retrospective study aimed to compare the deviations in single-tooth implant placement using novel semi-autonomous robotic-assisted surgery system (sa-RASS) and dynamic navigation system (DNS) methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical records from January to December 2023 was conducted to compare the implantation accuracy of the sa-RASS and DNS in partially edentulous patients using cone-beam computed tomography. Platform, apex, and angular deviations were measured and analyzed. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check the data distribution, along with t-tests or Mann-Whitney U-tests, where appropriate.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (57 implants) were analyzed: 29 (29 implants) in the sa-RASS group and 28 (28 implants) in the DNS group. The comparison of platform, apex, and angular deviation between the sa-RASS group and DNS group were 0.91 ± 0.46 mm vs. 1.26 ± 0.51 mm (p < 0.001), 1.06 ± 0.60 mm vs. 1.51 ± 0.56 mm (p < 0.001), and 3.07° ± 1.66° vs. 3.71° ± 1.64° (p > 0.05), respectively. In addition, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of different implant regions (premolar, molar, maxilla, and mandible) or implant length (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, sa-RASS implant placement showed better positional accuracy than DNS implant placement in platform and apex deviation, although these improvements in accuracy may have limited clinical relevance, suggesting that the sa-RASS might be advantageous in dental implant surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR2400085089.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical records from January to December 2023 was conducted to compare the implantation accuracy of the sa-RASS and DNS in partially edentulous patients using cone-beam computed tomography. Platform, apex, and angular deviations were measured and analyzed. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check the data distribution, along with t-tests or Mann-Whitney U-tests, where appropriate.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (57 implants) were analyzed: 29 (29 implants) in the sa-RASS group and 28 (28 implants) in the DNS group. The comparison of platform, apex, and angular deviation between the sa-RASS group and DNS group were 0.91 ± 0.46 mm vs. 1.26 ± 0.51 mm (p < 0.001), 1.06 ± 0.60 mm vs. 1.51 ± 0.56 mm (p < 0.001), and 3.07° ± 1.66° vs. 3.71° ± 1.64° (p > 0.05), respectively. In addition, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of different implant regions (premolar, molar, maxilla, and mandible) or implant length (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, sa-RASS implant placement showed better positional accuracy than DNS implant placement in platform and apex deviation, although these improvements in accuracy may have limited clinical relevance, suggesting that the sa-RASS might be advantageous in dental implant surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR2400085089.