Scholarlink

<p>While virtual planning of implant placement is common, reliable clinical transfer remains critical. This randomized clinical trial compared transfer accuracy between a miniaturized dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS; DENACAM) and static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS; BEGO). In 45 patients, 70 implants were placed (<i>n</i> = 35 per method). Deviations between planned and achieved positions were assessed by CBCT superimposition. Accuracy differences were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models (Type III F-tests; F, p-value, ICC) for 3D angular, 3D linear (implant base, tip), 2D mesio-distal, vestibulo-oral, and apico-coronal deviations. Ergonomic perception and covariate effects (age, sex, jaw, implant region, gap type) were analyzed using mixed-effects regression (β, 95% CI; α = 0.05). No significant accuracy differences were observed (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). ICC values (0.00-0.56) indicated substantial patient-level variance. Mean 3D deviations (dynamic vs. static) were 4.89° ± 2.17 vs. 5.01° ± 2.13 (angular), 1.81&#xa0;mm ± 0.69 vs. 1.55&#xa0;mm ± 0.47 (base), 2.01&#xa0;mm ± 0.72 vs. 1.78&#xa0;mm ± 0.52 (tip). Ergonomic ratings were comparable. Covariate effects were limited to jaw (2D base deviation) and age (3D angular deviation) (<i>p</i> = 0.022, 0.015). This dCAIS may be equally suitable for implant plan transfer as sCAIS.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Accuracy of dental implant positioning by dynamic or static computer-assisted implant surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月31日

查看全文
  • Karin Christine Huth,
  • Jiří Hrkal,
  • Michal Čičmanec,
  • Frank Berlinghoff

摘要

While virtual planning of implant placement is common, reliable clinical transfer remains critical. This randomized clinical trial compared transfer accuracy between a miniaturized dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS; DENACAM) and static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS; BEGO). In 45 patients, 70 implants were placed (n = 35 per method). Deviations between planned and achieved positions were assessed by CBCT superimposition. Accuracy differences were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models (Type III F-tests; F, p-value, ICC) for 3D angular, 3D linear (implant base, tip), 2D mesio-distal, vestibulo-oral, and apico-coronal deviations. Ergonomic perception and covariate effects (age, sex, jaw, implant region, gap type) were analyzed using mixed-effects regression (β, 95% CI; α = 0.05). No significant accuracy differences were observed (p > 0.05). ICC values (0.00-0.56) indicated substantial patient-level variance. Mean 3D deviations (dynamic vs. static) were 4.89° ± 2.17 vs. 5.01° ± 2.13 (angular), 1.81 mm ± 0.69 vs. 1.55 mm ± 0.47 (base), 2.01 mm ± 0.72 vs. 1.78 mm ± 0.52 (tip). Ergonomic ratings were comparable. Covariate effects were limited to jaw (2D base deviation) and age (3D angular deviation) (p = 0.022, 0.015). This dCAIS may be equally suitable for implant plan transfer as sCAIS.