中国口腔种植学杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (4): 229-237.DOI: 10.12337/zgkqzzxzz.2022.08.006

• 论著·临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

使用四种植入方法在下颌后牙区植入精度的体外对比分析

马玉霄1, 周立波1, 孟凡文2, 杨德钊2, 王兆运3, 段峰1   

  1. 1 佳木斯大学口腔医学院 154002;
    2 苏州大学附属口腔医院·苏州口腔医院 215005;
    3 佳木斯大学公共卫生学院 154007
  • 收稿日期:2022-05-26 出版日期:2022-08-30 发布日期:2022-09-07
  • 通讯作者: 段峰,Email: duanfeng60@sohu.com,电话:0454-8625875 作者简介:马玉霄,硕士研究生、医师,研究方向:数字化口腔种植精准性;段峰,副教授、主任医师、硕士研究生导师,研究方向:数字化口腔种植

Comparison of implantation accuracy of four implantation methods in the posterior region of mandible: an in vitro study

Ma Yuxiao1, Zhou Libo1, Meng Fanwen2, Yang Dezhao2, Wang Zhaoyun3, Duan Feng1   

  1. 1 The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Jiamusi University, Jiamusi 154002, Heilongjiang Province, China;
    2 The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou 215005, China;
    3 School of Public Health, Jiamusi University, Jiamusi 154007, Heilongjiang Province, China
  • Received:2022-05-26 Online:2022-08-30 Published:2022-09-07
  • Contact: Duan Feng, Email: duanfeng60@sohu.com, Tel: 0086-454-8625875

摘要: 目的 比较使用自由手种植(FH)、手术导板(SG)、动态导航(DN)以及导板和导航联合使用(SG+DN)时种植体植入的精确度,以为种植治疗方法选择提供支持。方法 使用四种不同的种植方法,将192颗种植体平均分配植入到48个相同的具有双侧同源牙植入位点的下颌骨模型中。根据实验模型术前CBCT,规划适当的植入位置,使四种种植方法均用相同的规划信息进行种植体植入。术后将植入后的CBCT与术前规划数据配准,测量植入后的三维偏差和平行度。结果 用计算机辅助植入方式(CAIS)获得的精度明显高于自由手植入(P<0.01),SG组与DN组在植入点的三维误差分别为0.63(0.29)(0.55~0.71)mm和0.57(0.19)(0.52~0.63)mm,在根尖的三维误差分别为0.72(0.27)(0.65~0.80)mm 和 0.62(0.20)(0.56~0.68)mm,两组间差异不具有统计学显著性(P>0.05);SG+DN联合组在植入点和根尖的误差分别为0.33(0.13)(0.29~0.37)mm和0.35(0.14)(0.31~0.39)mm,与其他组间差异具有统计学显著性(P<0.05)。使用SG时,在植入点水平方向上的偏差较小;而使用DN时,角度的偏差更小。结论 CAIS 能够提高种植的精准度,并且当SG+DN联合使用时可以获得最佳的准确性。

关键词: 精准度, 牙种植, 计算机辅助种植, 静态导板系统, 动态导航系统

Abstract: Objectives To compare the accuracy of implant placement using free-hand implantation (FH), surgical guide (SG), dynamic navigation (DN), and guide and navigation (SG with DN). Methods Using four different implantation methods, 192 implants were equally distributed into 48 identical mandibular models with bilaterally homologous tooth implantation sites. According to the preoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of the experimental model, the appropriate implantation position was planned, so that the four implantation methods used the same planning information for implant placement. Post-implantation CBCT was registered with preoperative planning data to measure post-implantation 3D deviation and parallelism. Results The accuracy obtained with computer-assisted implantation (CAIS) was significantly higher than that obtained with free-hand implantation (P<0.01), The three-dimensional deviation of the SG group and the DN group at crest were 0.63(0.29)(0.55~0.71)mm and 0.57(0.19)(0.52~0.63)mm, respectively; and the three-dimensional deviation at apex were 0.72(0.27)(0.65~0.80)mm and 0.62(0.20)(0.56~0.68)mm, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05); the deviations of the SG with DN group at crest and apex were 0.33 (0.13)(0.29~0.37)mm and 0.35(0.14)(0.31~0.39)mm, and the difference with other groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). When SG was used, the deviation in the horizontal direction at crest was smaller (SG and SG with DN groups); while when DN was used, the deviation in angle was smaller (DN and SG with DN groups). Conclusion CAIS can improve the accuracy of implantation, and the best accuracy can be obtained when the surgical guide and dynamic navigation are used in combination.

Key words: Accuracy, Dental implantation, Computer-assisted implantation, Static guide system, Dynamic navigation system