Accuracy of implant site preparation in robotic navigated dental implant surgery.
digital dentistry
implant drilled socket
implantology
radiographs
surgical
techniques
Journal
Clinical implant dentistry and related research
ISSN: 1708-8208
Titre abrégé: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888977
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
05
05
2023
received:
29
12
2022
accepted:
09
05
2023
medline:
5
10
2023
pubmed:
18
5
2023
entrez:
18
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Modern technological advancements have led to increase in the development of surgical robots in dentistry, resulting in excellent clinical treatment outcomes. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of automatic robotic implant site preparation for different implant sizes by correlating planned and posttreatment positions, and to compare the performance of robotic and human freehand drilling. Seventy-six drilling sites on partially edentulous models were used, with three different implant sizes (Ø = 3.5 × 10 mm, 4.0 × 10 mm, 5.0 × 10 mm). The robotic procedure was performed using software for calibration and step-by-step drilling processes. After robotic drilling, deviations in the implant position from the planned position were determined. The angulation, depth, and coronal and apical diameters on the sagittal plane of sockets created by human and robotic drilling were measured. The deviation of the robotic system was 3.78° ± 1.97° (angulation), 0.58 ± 0.36 mm (entry point), and 0.99 ± 0.56 mm (apical point). Comparison of implant groups showed the largest deviation from the planned position for 5 mm implants. On the sagittal plane, there were no significant differences between robotic and human surgery except for the 5-mm implant angulation, indicating similar quality between human and robotic drilling. Based on standard implant measurements, robotic drilling exhibited comparable performance to freehand human drilling. A robotic surgical system can provide the greatest accuracy and reliability regarding the preoperative plan for small implant diameters. In addition, the accuracy of robotic drilling for anterior implant surgery can also be comparable to that of human drilling.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Modern technological advancements have led to increase in the development of surgical robots in dentistry, resulting in excellent clinical treatment outcomes.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine the accuracy of automatic robotic implant site preparation for different implant sizes by correlating planned and posttreatment positions, and to compare the performance of robotic and human freehand drilling.
METHOD
METHODS
Seventy-six drilling sites on partially edentulous models were used, with three different implant sizes (Ø = 3.5 × 10 mm, 4.0 × 10 mm, 5.0 × 10 mm). The robotic procedure was performed using software for calibration and step-by-step drilling processes. After robotic drilling, deviations in the implant position from the planned position were determined. The angulation, depth, and coronal and apical diameters on the sagittal plane of sockets created by human and robotic drilling were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The deviation of the robotic system was 3.78° ± 1.97° (angulation), 0.58 ± 0.36 mm (entry point), and 0.99 ± 0.56 mm (apical point). Comparison of implant groups showed the largest deviation from the planned position for 5 mm implants. On the sagittal plane, there were no significant differences between robotic and human surgery except for the 5-mm implant angulation, indicating similar quality between human and robotic drilling. Based on standard implant measurements, robotic drilling exhibited comparable performance to freehand human drilling.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A robotic surgical system can provide the greatest accuracy and reliability regarding the preoperative plan for small implant diameters. In addition, the accuracy of robotic drilling for anterior implant surgery can also be comparable to that of human drilling.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
881-891Subventions
Organisme : Southern Taiwan Science Park Bureau, Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)
ID : EX-03-06-08-111
Informations de copyright
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Carbone M, Goss E, Borione M, et al. Implant supported prostheses with bone system implant system: a retrospective study with follow-up period up to 13-years about 1021 fixtures. Minerva Stomatol. 2007;56(10):481-495.
Karoussis IK, Brägger U, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Lang NP. Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI® dental implant system. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(1):8-17.
Yan B, Zhang W, Cai L, et al. Optics-guided robotic system for dental implant surgery. Chin J Mech Eng. 2022;35(1):1-13.
Brief J, Edinger D, Hassfeld S, Eggers G. Accuracy of image-guided implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(4):495-501.
Shan T, Tay F, Gu L. Application of artificial intelligence in dentistry. J Dent Res. 2021;100(3):232-244.
Emery RW, Merritt SA, Lank K, Gibbs JD. Accuracy of dynamic navigation for dental implant placement-model-based evaluation. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(5):399-405.
Casap N, Nadel S, Tarazi E, Weiss EI. Evaluation of a navigation system for dental implantation as a tool to train novice dental practitioners. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(10):2548-2556.
Kang S-H, Lee J-W, Lim S-H, Kim Y-H, Kim M-K. Verification of the usability of a navigation method in dental implant surgery: in vitro comparison with the stereolithographic surgical guide template method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(7):1530-1535.
Panchal N, Mahmood L, Retana A, Emery R. Dynamic navigation for dental implant surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin. 2019;31(4):539-547.
Chackartchi T, Romanos GE, Parkanyi L, Schwarz F, Sculean A. Reducing errors in guided implant surgery to optimize treatment outcomes. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):64-72.
Pyo S-W, Lim Y-J, Koo K-T, Lee J. Methods used to assess the 3D accuracy of dental implant positions in computer-guided implant placement: a review. J Clin Med. 2019;8(1):54.
Yimarj P, Subbalekha K, Dhanesuan K, Siriwatana K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. Comparison of the accuracy of implant position for two-implants supported fixed dental prosthesis using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(6):672-678.
Wu Y, Wang F, Huang W, Fan S. Real-time navigation in zygomatic implant placement: workflow. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin. 2019;31(3):357-367.
Tao B, Feng Y, Fan X, et al. Accuracy of dental implant surgery using dynamic navigation and robotic systems: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2022;123:104170.
Sun T-M, Lee H-E, Lan T-H. The influence of dental experience on a dental implant navigation system. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):1-11.
Block MS, Emery RW, Lank K, Ryan J. Implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(1):92-99.
Feng Y, Fan J, Tao B, et al. An image-guided hybrid robot system for dental implant surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2022;17(1):15-26.
van Riet TC, Sem KTCJ, Ho J-PT, Spijker R, Kober J, de Lange J. Robot technology in dentistry, part two of a systematic review: an overview of initiatives. Dent Mater. 2021;37(8):1227-1236.
de Benedictis A, Trezza A, Carai A, et al. Robot-assisted procedures in pediatric neurosurgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E7.
Cao Z, Qin C, Fan S, et al. Pilot study of a surgical robot system for zygomatic implant placement. Med Eng Phys. 2020;75:72-78.
Cheng K-j, Kan T-s, Liu Y-f, et al. Accuracy of dental implant surgery with robotic position feedback and registration algorithm: an in-vitro study. Comput Biol Med. 2021;129:104153.
Jin X, Kim RJ-Y, Park J-M, et al. Accuracy of surgical robot system compared to surgical guide for dental implant placement: a pilot study. J Implant Appl Sci. 2022;26:27-38.
Boesecke R, Brief J, Raczkowsky J, et al. Robot assistant for dental implantology. Paper presented at International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. 2001.
Mozes A, Vaish S, Cole DP, et al. Tracking and guidance arrangement for a surgical robot system and related method. Google Patents. 2022.
Haidar Z. Autonomous robotics: a fresh era of implant dentistry… is a reality! J Oral Res. 2017;6(9):230-231.
Krithikadatta JGV, Datta M. CRIS guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): a concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(4):301-304.
Kaewsiri D, Panmekiate S, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(6):505-514.
Branemark P-I. Introduction to osseointegration. In: Branemark P-I, Zarb C, Albrektsson T, eds. Tissue-integrated prostheses. Quintessence Publishing Co.; 1985:11-76.
Cleary K, Peters TM. Image-guided interventions: technology review and clinical applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2010;12:119-142.
Greenstein G, Tarnow D. The mental foramen and nerve: clinical and anatomical factors related to dental implant placement: a literature review. J Periodontol. 2006;77(12):1933-1943.
Van Assche N, Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, Teughels W, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Accuracy of computer-aided implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:112-123.
Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Salomó-Coll O, Wang H-l. Advantages and disadvantages of implant navigation surgery. a systematic review. Ann Anat. 2019;225:1-10.
Bover-Ramos F, Viña-Almunia J, Cervera-Ballester J, Peñarrocha-Diago M, García-Mira B. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(1):101-115.
Pellegrino G, Ferri A, Del Fabbro M, Prati C, Giovanna Gandolfi M, Marchetti C. Dynamic navigation in implant dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(5):e121-e140.
Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:416-435.
Rawal S, Tillery DE Jr, Brewer P. Robotic-assisted prosthetically driven planning and immediate placement of a dental implant. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2020;41(1):26-30. quiz 31.
Mediavilla Guzmán A, Riad Deglow E, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, Agustín-Panadero R, Hernández MS. Accuracy of computer-aided dynamic navigation compared to computer-aided static navigation for dental implant placement: an in vitro study. J Clin Med. 2019;8(12):2123.
Demirkol N, Demirkol M. The diameter and length properties of single posterior dental implants: a retrospective study. Cumhur Dent J. 2019;22(3):276-282.
Edelmann C, Wetzel M, Knipper A, Luthardt RG, Schnutenhaus S. Accuracy of computer-assisted dynamic navigation in implant placement with a fully digital approach: a prospective clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):1808.
Hu L, Sa Y. A digital technique to manage restoration of severely tilted adjacent implants: a dental technique. J Prosthodont. 2022;31:447-451.