The influence of radiographic marker registration versus a markerless trace registration method on the implant placement accuracy achieved by dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. An in-vitro study

被引:1
|
作者
Jorba-Garcia, Adria [1 ]
Bara-Casaus, Jose Javier [2 ,3 ]
Camps-Font, Octavi [4 ,5 ]
Figueiredo, Rui [4 ,5 ]
Valmaseda-Castellon, Eduard [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Barcelona, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Oral Surg & Implantol, Barcelona, Spain
[2] Hosp Univ Sagrat Cor, Dent & Maxillofacial Inst, Grp Quirosalud, Barcelona, Spain
[3] Univ Barcelona, Univ Hosp Mutua Terrassa, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Terrassa, Spain
[4] Univ Barcelona, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Oral Surg, Barcelona, Spain
[5] IDIBELL Inst, Barcelona, Spain
关键词
Computer-assisted surgery; Dental implants; Surgical navigation systems; Implant-Supported Dental Prosthesis; Accuracy; NAVIGATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105072
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effect the radiographic marker registration (RMR) and markerless tracing registration (MTR) on implant placement accuracy using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS). Additionally, this study aimed to assess the surgical time and whether the implant location influences the accuracy of the two registration methods. Methods: 136 dental implants were randomly allocated to the RMR or MTR group and were placed with a dCAIS in resin models. Preoperative and postoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomograms (CBCT) were overlaid and implant placement accuracy was assessed. Descriptive and multivariate analysis of the data was performed. Results: Significant differences (P < 0.001) were found for all accuracy variables except angular deviation (RMR:4.30 degrees (SD:4.37 degrees); MTR:3.89 degrees (SD:3.32 degrees)). The RMR had a mean 3D platform deviation of 1.53 mm (SD:0.98 mm) and mean apex 3D deviation of 1.63 mm (SD:1.05 mm) while the MTR had lower values (0.83 mm (SD:0.67 mm) and 1.07 mm (SD:0.86 mm), respectively). In the MTR group, implant placement in the anterior mandible was more accurate (p < 0.05). Additionally, MTR did not significantly increase the surgical time compared with RMR (P = 0.489). Conclusions: MTR seems to increase the accuracy of implant placement using dCAIS in comparison with the RMR method, without increasing the surgical time. The operated area seems to be relevant and might influence the implant deviations. Clinical significance: Considering the limitations of this in-vitro study<bold>,</bold> MTR seems to provide a higher accuracy in implant placement using dCAIS without increasing the surgical time. Furthermore, this method does not require radiographic markers and allows re-registration during surgery.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [1] Accuracy of dental implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: An in vitro study
    Otaghsara, Seyedeh Sahar Taheri
    Joda, Tim
    Thieringer, Florian Markus
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 132
  • [2] Comparison of Dental Surface Image Registration and Fiducial Marker Registration: An In Vivo Accuracy Study of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery
    Han, Yen-Ting
    Lin, Wei-Chun
    Fan, Fang-Yu
    Chen, Chih-Long
    Lin, Chia-Cheng
    Cheng, Hsin-Chung
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (18)
  • [3] Does implant drill design influence the accuracy of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery? An in vitro study
    Takacs, Anna
    Marada, Gyula
    Turzo, Kinga
    Nagy, Akos
    Nemeth, Orsolya
    Mijiritsky, Eitan
    Kivovics, Marton
    Muhl, Attila
    [J]. BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [4] Does implant drill design influence the accuracy of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery? An in vitro study
    Anna Takács
    Gyula Marada
    Kinga Turzó
    Ákos Nagy
    Orsolya Németh
    Eitan Mijiritsky
    Márton Kivovics
    Attila Mühl
    [J]. BMC Oral Health, 23
  • [5] Accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: An in vitro study
    Ruiz-Romero, Victor
    Jorba-Garcia, Adria
    Camps-Font, Octavi
    Figueiredo, Rui
    Valmaseda-Castellon, Eduard
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 149
  • [6] Accuracy of 3 calibration methods of computer-assisted dynamic navigation for implant placement: An in vitro study
    Pei, Xiyan
    Liu, Xiaoqiang
    Iao, Siniong
    Ma, Feifei
    Li, Hong
    Sun, Feng
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 131 (04): : 668 - 674
  • [7] Accuracy of implant placement via dynamic navigation and autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery methods: A retrospective study
    Zhang, Sihui
    Cai, Qin
    Chen, Weiyi
    Lin, Yuxuan
    Gao, Yan
    Wu, Dong
    Chen, Jiang
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (02) : 220 - 229
  • [8] Accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery for immediate implant placement: A retrospective case series study
    Li, Ping
    Zhao, Chunhui
    Chen, Jiahao
    Xu, Shulan
    Yang, Shuo
    Li, An
    [J]. CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [9] Comparison of the accuracy of dental implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted systems: an in vitro study
    Zhou, Miao
    Zhou, Hui
    Li, Shu-Yi
    Zhu, Yi-Bo
    Geng, Yuan-Ming
    [J]. JOURNAL OF STOMATOLOGY ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2021, 122 (04) : 343 - 348
  • [10] Accuracy of dental implant surgery with robotic position feedback and registration algorithm: An in-vitro study
    Cheng, Kang-jie
    Kan, Tian-shu
    Liu, Yun-feng
    Zhu, Wei-dong
    Zhu, Fu-dong
    Wang, Wei-bin
    Jiang, Xian-feng
    Dong, Xing-tao
    [J]. COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2021, 129