Accuracy evaluation of 3D-printed noninvasive adhesive marker for dynamic navigation implant surgery in a maxillary edentulous model: An in vitro study

Accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To compare miniscrew versus bone tracing registration methods on dental implant placement accuracy and time efficiency in edentulous jaws using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS) system.

METHODS

Twelve fully edentulous maxillary models were allocated into two groups: miniscrew tracing (MST) group, where registration was performed by tracing four miniscrews; and bone tracing (BT) group, where registration was conducted by tracing maxillary bone fiducial landmarks. Six implants were placed on each model using the X-Guide® d-CAIS system. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were superimposed to evaluate implant placement accuracy. The time required for registration and the overall surgery time were also recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-six implants were placed in each group. The MST group showed significantly lower mean angulation deviations (mean difference (MD): -3.33°; 95 % confidence interval (CI): -6.56 to -0.09); p = 0.044), 3D platform deviations (MD: -1.01 mm; 95 % CI: -1.74 to -0.29; p = 0.006), 2D platform deviations (MD: -0.97 mm; 95 % CI: -1.71 to -0.23; p = 0.010), and 3D apex deviations (MD: -1.18 mm; 95 % CI: -1.92 to -0.44; p = 0.002) versus the BT group. The overall surgery time was similar for both groups (MD: 6.10 min.; 95 % CI: -0.31 to 12.51; p = 0.06), though bone tracing required significantly more time compared with miniscrew registration (MD: 4.79 min.; 95 % CI: 2.96 to 6.62; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Registration with MST increases the accuracy of implant placement with a d-CAIS system in edentulous jaws compared with the BT method, and slightly reduces the overall surgery time.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Miniscrew tracing registration improves implant placement accuracy in comparison with bone tracing registration.

The effect on the performance of a dynamic navigation system of superimposing a standard tessellation language (STL) file obtained with an intraoral scan on a cone beam computer tomograph (CBCT). An experimental in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy and operative time of implant placement using a dynamic computer assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) system based on a cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) image, with and without superimposing a standard tessellation language (STL) file of an intraoral scan of the patient.

METHODS

Ten identical resin models simulating an upper maxilla with posterior edentulism were assigned to two groups. In the CBCT+STL group, a CBCT file and an intraoral STL file were superimposed and used for registration; in the CBCT group, registration was performed using CBCT images. Six implants were placed in each model using the Navident® dynamic navigation system. Anatomy registration was performed by tracing fiducial points on the CBCT or STL image, depending on the group. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT images were overlaid to assess implant placement accuracy.

RESULTS

Sixty implants were analyzed (30 implants in each group). 3D platform deviation was significantly lower (mean difference (MD): 0.17 mm; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.01 to 0.23; P = 0.039) in the CBCT+STL group (mean: 0.71 mm; standard deviation (SD): 0.29) than in the CBCT group (mean: 0.88 mm; SD: 0.39). The remaining accuracy outcome variables (angular deviation MD: -0.01; platform lateral deviation MD: 0.08 mm; apex global MD: 0.01 mm; apex depth MD: 0.33 mm) and surgery time (MD: 3.383 min.) were similar in both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of an intraoral scan (STL) seems to reduce deviations slightly in dental implant placement with dCAIS systems. However, the clinical repercussion of this improvement is questionable.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Superimposing an intraoral scan on the CBCT image does not seem to increase the accuracy of dCAIS systems but can be useful when radiographic artifacts are present.

Accuracy of dental implant placement using different dynamic navigation and robotic systems: an in vitro study

Computer-aided implant surgery has undergone continuous development in recent years. In this study, active and passive systems of dynamic navigation were divided into active dynamic navigation system group and passive dynamic navigation system group (ADG and PDG), respectively. Active, passive and semi-active implant robots were divided into active robot group, passive robot group and semi-active robot group (ARG, PRG and SRG), respectively. Each group placed two implants (FDI tooth positions 31 and 36) in a model 12 times. The accuracy of 216 implants in 108 models were analysed. The coronal deviations of ADG, PDG, ARG, PRG and SRG were 0.85 ± 0.17 mm, 1.05 ± 0.42 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.40 ± 0.16 mm and 0.33 ± 0.14 mm, respectively. The apical deviations of the five groups were 1.11 ± 0.23 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.50 ± 0.19 mm and 0.36 ± 0.16 mm, respectively. The axial deviations of the five groups were 1.78 ± 0.73°, 1.99 ± 1.20°, 0.61 ± 0.25°, 1.04 ± 0.37° and 0.42 ± 0.18°, respectively. The coronal, apical and axial deviations of ADG were higher than those of ARG, PRG and SRG (all P < 0.001). Similarly, the coronal, apical and axial deviations of PDG were higher than those of ARG, PRG, and SRG (all P < 0.001). Dynamic and robotic computer-aided implant surgery may show good implant accuracy in vitro. However, the accuracy and stability of implant robots are higher than those of dynamic navigation systems.

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

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° (SD:4.37°); MTR:3.89° (SD:3.32°)). 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, 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.

Accuracy and efficiency of a calibration approach in dynamic navigation for implant placement: An in vitro study

Background/purpose

Computer-assisted dynamic navigation surgery could provide accurate implant placement. However, its low efficiency was always criticized by dental surgeons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of a calibration approach with reflective wafers in dynamic navigation for implant placement.

Materials and methods

Eighty implants were placed in the standardized polyurethane mandibular models under dynamic navigation and divided into 2 groups according to the calibration methods (n = 40). The U-shaped tube (UT) group used a prefabricated U-shaped tube embedded with radiopaque markers. The reflective wafers (RW) group used a fixation with 3 round reflective wafers as markers. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography images were obtained for implants deviation analyses. The calibration time was used to evaluate the efficiency of the 2 methods.

Results

Significant differences were found in the trueness and efficiency between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). The 3D deviations at the implant platform and apex were smaller in UT group (0.89 ± 0.28 and 0.79 ± 0.30 mm, respectively) than in the RW group (0.99 ± 0.28 and 0.98 ± 0.30 mm, respectively). The angular deviation was larger in the UT group (2.16 ± 1.12°) than in the RW group (1.53 ± 0.88°). The calibration approach of RW group was more efficient than the UT group (2.05 ± 0.55 and 7.50 ± 0.71 min, respectively).

Conclusion

The calibration method of RW improved the efficiency significantly and achieved equivalent trueness with UT for dynamic navigation during implant placement.

The accuracy of a novel image-guided hybrid robotic system for dental implant placement: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

This in vitro study aims to evaluate the accuracy of dental implant placement by a novel image-guided hybrid robotic system for dental implant surgery (HRS-DIS).

METHODS

The HRS-DIS with a 5 degree of freedom (DOF) serial manipulator and a 6 DOF Stewart platform was developed. To evaluate the accuracy of repeated drilling, the holes were prepared twice with a 2.2 mm drill. To evaluate the accuracy of dental implant placement, the entry, exit and angle deviations of dental implants were measured.

RESULTS

Twenty-four holes were prepared twice, and mean (±SD) of diameters were measured as 2.2 ± 0.02 mm. A total of 160 dental implants were placed in 32 phantoms by HRS-DIS. The mean (±SD) of the entry, exit and angle deviation were 0.8 ± 0.54 mm, 0.87 ± 0.54 mm and 1.0 1 ± 0.44°, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the in vitro study preliminarily validated that the HRS-DIS could provide a high accuracy for dental implant surgery.