中国口腔种植学杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (5): 421-428.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2025.10.001

• 基础研究 •    下一篇

3种不同数字化辅助种植技术在全牙弓种植中精度的体外对比研究

李越, 赵文博, 王一茗, 李昕茹, 周立波   

  1. 黑龙江省口腔生物材料与临床应用重点实验室 佳木斯大学口腔医学工程实验中心 佳木斯大学口腔医学院 154000
  • 收稿日期:2025-07-30 出版日期:2025-10-30 发布日期:2025-10-30
  • 通讯作者: 周立波,Email:zhoulibo0219@126.com,电话:0454-8625530
  • 作者简介:李越,硕士研究生,研究方向:数字化口腔种植;周立波,博士、硕士研究生导师,研究方向:数字化口腔种植
  • 基金资助:
    中国牙病防治基金会口腔种植科学研究专项基金(COHF ZZZX202410); 黑龙江省高等教育教学改革项目(SJGZ20220124); 黑龙江省口腔生物医学材料及临床应用重点实验室开放课题项目(KQSW202204)

Accuracy of three digitally guided implant techniques for full-arch rehabilitation: an in vitro study

Li Yue, Zhao Wenbo, Wang Yiming, Li Xinru, Zhou Libo   

  1. Key Laboratory of Oral Biomaterial Materials and Clinical Application, Heilongjiang Provincial, Experimental Center of Stomatology Engineering, Jiamusi University, Stomatology College of Jiamusi University, Jiamusi 154000, Heilongjiang, China
  • Received:2025-07-30 Online:2025-10-30 Published:2025-10-30
  • Contact: Zhou Libo, Email: zhoulibo0219@126.com, Tel: 0086-454-8625530
  • Supported by:
    Scientific Research Projects for Oral Implantology of China Oral Health Foundation (COHF ZZZX202410); Heilongjiang Province Higher Education Teaching Reform Project (SJGZ20220124); Open Project of Heilongjiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Materials and Clinical Application(KQSW202204)

摘要: 目的 对比磁吸式序列导板、榫卯式序列导板与口腔种植机器人在全牙弓种植中的精度差异,为临床应用提供参考。方法 选取30例标准化下颌全牙弓模型,根据种植方式的不同平均分为3组。术前拍摄CBCT进行种植规划,3组采用统一规划进行种植体植入,术后通过CBCT扫描进行偏差分析。结果 口腔种植机器人组精度最高,其次为磁吸式序列导板,榫卯式序列导板相对最低。口腔种植机器人组、磁吸式序列导板组、榫卯式序列导板组在种植精度方面,植入点总偏差、根尖点总偏差、角度总偏差有统计学意义(P<0.05);在植入点横向及深度偏差、根尖点横向及深度偏差方面也具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 口腔种植机器人与磁吸式序列导板技术在全牙弓种植中均能实现较高精度,临床可根据具体情况选择合适的种植方法。

关键词: 全牙弓种植, 精度, 序列导板, 口腔种植机器人

Abstract: Objective To compare the accuracy differences between magnetic sequential guides, mortise-and-tenon sequence guides, and dental implant robots in full-arch implantation, and to provide a reference for clinical application. Methods Thirty standardized mandibular full-arch models were selected and equally divided into three groups according to the implantation methods. Preoperative CBCT scans was taken for implant planning, and the three groups used the same plan for implant placement. Deviation analysis was performed based postoperative CBCT scanning. Results The dental implant robot group demonstrated the highest accuracy, followed by the magnetic sequential guide group, with the mortise-and-tenon sequential guide group showing the lowest accuracy. There was statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of total deviation at the entry point, total deviation at the apex, and total angular deviation (P<0.05). There were also statistically significant differences in the horizontal and depth deviations at the entry point and at the apex (P<0.05). Conclusion Both the dental implant robot and magnetic sequential guide technology can achieve high precision in full-arch implantation. Clinicians can choose the appropriate method according to the specific situation.

Key words: Full-arch implantation, Accuracy, Sequential guide, Dental implant robot