Clinical oral implants research · 2023
An in-vitro analysis of the accuracy of different guided surgery systems - They are not all the same.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Guentsch Arndt, Bjork Jennifer, Saxe Reagan, Han Shengtong, Dentino Andrew R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Different static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) systems are available that are based on different design concepts. The objective was to assess seven different systems in a controlled environment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each n = 20 implants were placed in identical mandible replicas (total n = 140). The systems utilized either drill-handles (group S and B), drill-body guidance (group Z and C), had the key attached to the drill (group D and V), or combined different design concepts (group N). The achieved final implant position was digitized utilizing cone-beam tomography and compared with the planned position. The angular deviation was defined as the primary outcome parameter. The means, standard deviation, and 95%-confidence intervals were analyzed statistically with 1-way ANOVA. A linear regression model was applied with the angle deviation as predictor and the sleeve height as response.
RESULTS: The overall angular deviation was 1.94 ± 1.51°, the 3D-deviation at the crest 0.54 ± 0.28 mm, and at the implant tip 0.67 ± 0.40 mm, respectively. Significant differences were found between the tested sCAIS systems. The angular deviation ranged between 0.88 ± 0.41° (S) and 3.97 ± 2.01° (C) (p < .01). Sleeve heights ≤4 mm are correlated with higher angle deviations, sleeve heights ≥5 mm with lower deviations from the planned implant position.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among the seven tested sCAIS systems. Systems that use drill-handles achieved the highest accuracy, followed by the systems that attach the key to the drill. The sleeve height appears to impact the accuracy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each n = 20 implants were placed in identical mandible replicas (total n = 140). The systems utilized either drill-handles (group S and B), drill-body guidance (group Z and C), had the key attached to the drill (group D and V), or combined different design concepts (group N). The achieved final implant position was digitized utilizing cone-beam tomography and compared with the planned position. The angular deviation was defined as the primary outcome parameter. The means, standard deviation, and 95%-confidence intervals were analyzed statistically with 1-way ANOVA. A linear regression model was applied with the angle deviation as predictor and the sleeve height as response.
RESULTS: The overall angular deviation was 1.94 ± 1.51°, the 3D-deviation at the crest 0.54 ± 0.28 mm, and at the implant tip 0.67 ± 0.40 mm, respectively. Significant differences were found between the tested sCAIS systems. The angular deviation ranged between 0.88 ± 0.41° (S) and 3.97 ± 2.01° (C) (p < .01). Sleeve heights ≤4 mm are correlated with higher angle deviations, sleeve heights ≥5 mm with lower deviations from the planned implant position.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found among the seven tested sCAIS systems. Systems that use drill-handles achieved the highest accuracy, followed by the systems that attach the key to the drill. The sleeve height appears to impact the accuracy.