Comparison of the accuracy of immediate implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant system in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: a prospective study

被引:21
|
作者
Feng, Yuzhang [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Su, Zhenya [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Mo, Anchun [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Yang, Xingmei [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Sichuan Univ, State Key Lab Oral Dis, 14 Sect 3,Renmin Nan Rd, Chengdu, Sichuan, Peoples R China
[2] Sichuan Univ, Natl Clin Res Ctr Oral Dis, 14Sect 3,Renmin Nan Rd, Chengdu, Sichuan, Peoples R China
[3] Sichuan Univ, West China Hosp Stomatol, Dept Oral Implantol, 14 Sect 3,Renmin Nan Rd, Chengdu, Sichuan, Peoples R China
关键词
Accuracy; Computer-assisted surgery; Dental implant; Immediate implant placement; Dynamic navigation; Static template; TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS; SURGICAL GUIDES; SURGERY; DENTISTRY; EXTRACTION; TOLERANCE; ERRORS;
D O I
10.1186/s40729-022-00464-w
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of fully guided between dynamic and static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Methods: A total of 40 qualified patients requiring immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone were randomly and equally assigned to either static CAIS group (n = 20) or dynamic CAIS groups (n = 20). Global deviations at entry, apex, and angular deviation between placed and planned implant position were measured and compared as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were the deviation of implant placement at mesial-distal, labial-palatal, and coronal-apical directions. Results: For the immediate implant placement, the mean global entry deviations in static and dynamic CAIS groups were 0.99 +/- 0.63 mm and 1.06 +/- 0.55 mm (p = 0.659), while the mean global apex deviations were 1.50 +/- 0.75 mm and 1.18 +/- 0.53 mm (p = 0.231), respectively. The angular deviation in the static and dynamic CAIS group was 3.07 +/- 2.18 degrees and 3.23 +/- 1.67 degrees (p = 0.547). No significant differences were observed for the accuracy parameters of immediate implant placement between static and dynamic CAIS systems, except the deviation of the implant at entry in the labial-palatal direction in the dynamic CAIS group was significantly more labial than of the static CAIS (p = 0.005). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that clinically acceptable accuracy of immediate implant placement could be achieved using static and dynamic CAIS systems.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] 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
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 131 (04): : 668 - 674
  • [22] Accuracy of freehand versus dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant placement: An in-vitro study
    Traboulsi-Garet, Bassel
    Jorba-Garcia, Adria
    Bara-Casaus, Javier
    Camps-Font, Octavi
    Valmaseda-Castellon, Eduard
    Figueiredo, Rui
    Sanchez-Garces, M. Angeles
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2025, 155
  • [23] Three-dimensional accuracy of implant placement in a computer-assisted navigation system
    Chiu, Wai-kuen
    Luk, Wai-kuen
    Cheung, Lim-kwong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2006, 21 (03) : 465 - 470
  • [24] Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
    Jain, Saurabh
    Sayed, Mohammed E.
    Ibraheem, Wael I.
    Ageeli, Abrar A.
    Gandhi, Sumir
    Jokhadar, Hossam F.
    Alresayes, Saad Saleh
    Alqarni, Hatem
    Alshehri, Abdullah Hasan
    Huthan, Halah Mohammed
    Alami, Atheer
    Al Wadei, Mohammed Hussain Dafer
    Aljabri, Yahya
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2024, 60 (01):
  • [25] Accuracy of open-sleeved vs. closed-sleeved static computer-assisted implant systems in immediate maxillary molar implant placement: An in vitro study
    Chen, Zhaozhao
    Li, Junying
    Wei, Chen Xuan
    Mendonca, Gustavo
    Wang, Hom-Lay
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (07) : 694 - 705
  • [26] Comparison of Implant Placement Accuracy in Healed and Fresh Extraction Sockets between Static and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery Navigation Systems: A Model-Based Evaluation
    Wang, Miaozhen
    Rausch-Fan, Xiaohui
    Zhan, Yalin
    Shen, Huidan
    Liu, Feng
    MATERIALS, 2022, 15 (08)
  • [27] Immediate Implant Placement and Restoration in the Esthetic Zone: A Prospective Study with 18 Months of Follow-up
    Tortamano, Pedro
    Alves Camargo, Luiz Otavio
    Bello-Silva, Marina Stella
    Kanashiro, Lucio Hirokuni
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2010, 25 (02) : 345 - 350
  • [28] Is there a learning curve in static computer-assisted implant surgery? A prospective clinical study
    Cassetta, M.
    Altieri, F.
    Giansanti, M.
    Bellardini, M.
    Brandetti, G.
    Piccoli, L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2020, 49 (10) : 1335 - 1342
  • [29] An accuracy study of computer planned implant placement in the augmented maxilla using osteosynthesis screws
    Verhamme, L. M.
    Meijer, G. J.
    Soehardi, A.
    Berge, S. J.
    Xi, T.
    Maal, T. J. J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2017, 46 (04) : 511 - 517
  • [30] Accuracy of computer-assisted, template-guided implant placement compared with conventional implant placement by hand-An in vitro study
    Schneider, David
    Sax, Caroline
    Sancho-Puchades, Manuel
    Hammerle, Christoph H. F.
    Jung, Ronald Ernst
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (09) : 1052 - 1060