The accuracy and learning curve of active and passive dynamic navigation-guided dental implant surgery: An in vitro study

被引:0
作者
Wang, Xiao-yu [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Lin [1 ]
Guan, Miao-sheng [1 ,3 ]
Liu, Qian [1 ]
Zhao, Tong [4 ]
Li, Hong-bo [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, Med Ctr 1, Dept Stomatol, 28 Fuxing Rd, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] PLA, Strateg Support Force Med Ctr, Dept Stomatol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] PLA, PLA Rocket Force Characterist Med Ctr, Dept Res, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Chinese Acad Sci, Sch Math Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
Dynamic navigation; Implant surgery; Registration; Accuracy; Active infrared tracking; Passive infrared tracking;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: Infrared dynamic navigation systems can be categorized into active and passive based on whether the surgical instruments can emit or only reflect light. This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant placement and the learning curve of both active and passive dynamic navigation systems, using different registration methods.Methods: Implants (n = 704) were placed in 64 sets of models and divided into active (Yizhime, DCARER, Suzhou, China) and passive (Iris-Clinic, EPED, Kaohsiung, China) dynamic navigation groups. Both marker point -based registration (M-PBR) and feature point-based registration (F-PBR) were employed for the two groups. Based on preoperative and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography imaging, the coronal, midpoint, apical, and angular deviations were analyzed from 2D and 3D views. The operation time was recorded for each group.Results: The active dynamic navigation group exhibited significantly higher accuracy than the passive dy-namic navigation group (angular deviation, 4.13 +/- 2.39 degrees versus 4.62 +/- 3.32 degrees; coronal global deviation, 1.48 +/- 0.60 versus 1.86 +/- 1.12 mm; apical global deviation, 1.75 +/- 0.81 versus 2.20 +/- 1.68 mm, respectively). Sig-nificant interaction effects were observed for both registration methods and four quadrants with different dy-namic navigation systems. Learning curves for the two dynamic navigation groups approached each other after 12 procedures, and finally converged after 27 procedures.Conclusions: The accuracy of active dynamic navigation system was superior to that of passive dynamic navigation system. Different combinations of dynamic navigation systems, registration methods, and implanted quadrants displayed various interactions.Clinical significance: Our findings could provide guidance for surgeons in choosing an appropriate naviga-tion system in various implant surgeries. Furthermore, the time required by surgeons to master the technique was calculated. Nevertheless, there are certain limitations in this in vitro study, and therefore further research is required.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Accuracy of Two Stereolithographic Guide Systems for Computer-Aided Implant Placement: A Computed Tomography-Based Clinical Comparative Study [J].
Arisan, Volkan ;
Karabuda, Z. Cuneyt ;
Ozdemir, Tayfun .
JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2010, 81 (01) :43-51
[2]   Applications of Navigation for Orthognathic Surgery [J].
Bobek, Samuel L. .
ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 26 (04) :587-+
[3]   Consensus Statements and Recommended Clinical Procedures Regarding Contemporary Surgical and Radiographic Techniques in Implant Dentistry [J].
Bornstein, Michael M. ;
Al-Nawas, Bilal ;
Kuchler, Ulrike ;
Tahmaseb, Ali .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2014, 29 :78-82
[4]   Osteomark: a surgical navigation system for oral and maxillofacial surgery [J].
Bouchard, C. ;
Magill, J. C. ;
Nikonovskiy, V. ;
Byl, M. ;
Murphy, B. A. ;
Kaban, L. B. ;
Troulis, M. J. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2012, 41 (02) :265-270
[5]  
Casap N, 2006, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V21, P314
[6]   Navigation surgery for dental implants: Assessment of accuracy of the image guided implantology system [J].
Casap, N ;
Wexler, A ;
Persky, N ;
Schneider, A ;
Lustmann, J .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2004, 62 (09) :116-119
[7]   Computerized navigation for surgery of the lower jaw: Comparison of 2 navigation systems [J].
Casap, Nardy ;
Wexler, Alon ;
Eliashar, Ron .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2008, 66 (07) :1467-1475
[8]   Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery [J].
D'haese, Jan ;
Ackhurst, Johan ;
Wismeijer, Daniel ;
De Bruyn, Hugo ;
Tahmaseb, Ali .
PERIODONTOLOGY 2000, 2017, 73 (01) :121-133
[9]   Exploring training dental implant placement using computer-guided implant navigation system for predoctoral students: A pilot study [J].
Deeb, Janina Golob ;
Bencharit, Sompop ;
Carrico, Caroline K. ;
Lukic, Marija ;
Hawkins, Daniel ;
Rener-Sitar, Ksenija ;
Deeb, George R. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION, 2019, 23 (04) :415-423
[10]  
Du Toit J, 2015, J ORAL IMPLANTOL, V41, pE144, DOI [10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00022, 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-14-00022]