中国口腔种植学杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (4): 341-348.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2025.08.003

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

自由手、动态导航和机器人辅助种植的精度比较

刘海燕1, 郑雨晨2, 丁榆德2, 杨帆2, 王林红2   

  1. 1杭州师范大学 311121;
    2浙江省人民医院(杭州医学院附属人民医院)310014
  • 收稿日期:2025-01-20 出版日期:2025-08-30 发布日期:2025-08-29
  • 通讯作者: 王林红,Email:wanglinhong@hmc.edu.cn,电话:0571-85893206
  • 作者简介:刘海燕,硕士研究生在读,研究方向:数字化口腔种植的精度研究。
    王林红,博士、副主任医师、硕士研究生导师,研究方向:数字化口腔种植。

Accuracy comparison of freehand, dynamic navigation, and robot-assisted implant placement

Liu Haiyan1, Zheng Yuchen2, Ding Yude2, Yang Fan2, Wang Linhong2   

  1. 1Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, Zhejiang, China;
    2Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, Zhejiang, China
  • Received:2025-01-20 Online:2025-08-30 Published:2025-08-29
  • Contact: Wang Linhong, Email: wanglinhong@hmc.edu.cn, Tel: 0086-571-85893206

摘要: 目的 通过比较自由手种植、动态导航辅助种植和机器人辅助种植的精度,探讨不同手术方式在种植手术中的精度差异。方法 回顾性分析2022年1月至2023年12月在浙江省人民医院接受种植手术的患者,分为自由手组、动态导航组和机器人组,通过对比术前CBCT设计的种植体位置与术后实际种植体位置来评估种植精度。结果 本研究共纳入87例患者(96颗种植体),其中自由手组30例(31颗)、动态导航组28例(36颗)、机器人组29例(29颗)。结果显示机器人组起点总偏差为(0.91±0.46)mm,终点总偏差为(1.05±0.61) mm,角度偏差为3.07°±1.69°,均显著低于自由手组[起点总偏差(1.42±0.86)mm、终点总偏差(2.00±1.18)mm、角度偏差7.78°±3.58°]和动态导航组[起点总偏差(1.32±0.57)mm、终点总偏差(1.64±0.77)mm、角度偏差 4.59°±2.65°]。结论 与自由手和动态导航相比,机器人辅助种植在精度上具有明显优势。

关键词: 口腔种植, 自由手, 动态导航, 机器人, 精度

Abstract: Objective To investigate the differences in precision among various techniques in implant surgery by comparing the accuracy of freehand, dynamic navigation-assisted, and robot-assisted implant placement. Methods Patients who underwent implant surgery at Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital between January 2022 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into freehand, dynamic navigation, and robotic groups. Implant accuracy was assessed by comparing preoperative CBCT-designed implant positions with actual postoperative CBCT implant positions. Results A total of 87 cases (96 implants) were included in this study, including 30 cases (31 implants) in the freehand group, 28 cases (36 implants) in the dynamic navigation group, and 29 cases (29 implants) in the robot group. In the robot group, the total deviation at the starting point (0.91±0.46) mm, endpoint (1.05±0.61) mm, and angular deviation (3.07°±1.69°) were significantly lower than those in the freehand group [(1.42±0.86) mm, (2.00±1.18) mm, and 7.78°±3.58°] and the dynamic navigation group [(1.32±0.57) mm, (1.64±0.77) mm, and 4.59°±2.65°]. Conclusion Robot-assisted implantation demonstrates significant advantages in terms of precision when compared to dynamic navigation and freehand implantation.

Key words: Implant, Freehand, Dynamic navigation, Robotics, Accuracy