Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study
Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Chen, Jianping [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2023 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2023 |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: BMC oral health - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:23 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; day:28 ; month:03 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR049874349 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | SPR049874349 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230331052638.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 230329s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)SPR049874349 | ||
035 | |a (SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Chen, Jianping |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study |
264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © The Author(s) 2023 | ||
520 | |a Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Dental implant robotic system |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Dynamic navigation system |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Dental implant |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Accuracy |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
700 | 1 | |a Bai, Xiaolei |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ding, Yude |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Shen, Liheng |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Sun, Xin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Cao, Ruijue |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Yang, Fan |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Wang, Linhong |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC oral health |d London : BioMed Central, 2001 |g 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März |w (DE-627)355500108 |w (DE-600)2091511-1 |x 1472-6831 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:23 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:28 |g month:03 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 23 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 28 |c 03 |
author_variant |
j c jc x b xb y d yd l s ls x s xs r c rc f y fy l w lw |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:14726831:2023----::oprsnhacrcoaoeipatoosreyndnmcaiainytmnetlm |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
publishDate |
2023 |
allfields |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 doi (DE-627)SPR049874349 (SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Jianping verfasserin aut Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. Dental implant robotic system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic navigation system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dental implant (dpeaa)DE-He213 Accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bai, Xiaolei aut Ding, Yude aut Shen, Liheng aut Sun, Xin aut Cao, Ruijue aut Yang, Fan aut Wang, Linhong aut Enthalten in BMC oral health London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 1472-6831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:28 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 28 03 |
spelling |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 doi (DE-627)SPR049874349 (SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Jianping verfasserin aut Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. Dental implant robotic system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic navigation system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dental implant (dpeaa)DE-He213 Accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bai, Xiaolei aut Ding, Yude aut Shen, Liheng aut Sun, Xin aut Cao, Ruijue aut Yang, Fan aut Wang, Linhong aut Enthalten in BMC oral health London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 1472-6831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:28 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 28 03 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 doi (DE-627)SPR049874349 (SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Jianping verfasserin aut Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. Dental implant robotic system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic navigation system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dental implant (dpeaa)DE-He213 Accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bai, Xiaolei aut Ding, Yude aut Shen, Liheng aut Sun, Xin aut Cao, Ruijue aut Yang, Fan aut Wang, Linhong aut Enthalten in BMC oral health London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 1472-6831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:28 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 28 03 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 doi (DE-627)SPR049874349 (SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Jianping verfasserin aut Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. Dental implant robotic system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic navigation system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dental implant (dpeaa)DE-He213 Accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bai, Xiaolei aut Ding, Yude aut Shen, Liheng aut Sun, Xin aut Cao, Ruijue aut Yang, Fan aut Wang, Linhong aut Enthalten in BMC oral health London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 1472-6831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:28 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 28 03 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 doi (DE-627)SPR049874349 (SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chen, Jianping verfasserin aut Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. Dental implant robotic system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic navigation system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dental implant (dpeaa)DE-He213 Accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bai, Xiaolei aut Ding, Yude aut Shen, Liheng aut Sun, Xin aut Cao, Ruijue aut Yang, Fan aut Wang, Linhong aut Enthalten in BMC oral health London : BioMed Central, 2001 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März (DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 1472-6831 nnns volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:28 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2023 1 28 03 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in BMC oral health 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:28 month:03 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in BMC oral health 23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März volume:23 year:2023 number:1 day:28 month:03 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Dental implant robotic system Dynamic navigation system Dental implant Accuracy |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
BMC oral health |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Chen, Jianping @@aut@@ Bai, Xiaolei @@aut@@ Ding, Yude @@aut@@ Shen, Liheng @@aut@@ Sun, Xin @@aut@@ Cao, Ruijue @@aut@@ Yang, Fan @@aut@@ Wang, Linhong @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-03-28T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
355500108 |
id |
SPR049874349 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR049874349</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230331052638.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230329s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR049874349</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Jianping</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dental implant robotic system</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dynamic navigation system</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dental implant</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Accuracy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bai, Xiaolei</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ding, Yude</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shen, Liheng</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sun, Xin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cao, Ruijue</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang, Fan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Linhong</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC oral health</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)355500108</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2091511-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6831</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Chen, Jianping |
spellingShingle |
Chen, Jianping misc Dental implant robotic system misc Dynamic navigation system misc Dental implant misc Accuracy Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study |
authorStr |
Chen, Jianping |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)355500108 |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
collection |
springer |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
1472-6831 |
topic_title |
Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study Dental implant robotic system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dynamic navigation system (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dental implant (dpeaa)DE-He213 Accuracy (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
topic |
misc Dental implant robotic system misc Dynamic navigation system misc Dental implant misc Accuracy |
topic_unstemmed |
misc Dental implant robotic system misc Dynamic navigation system misc Dental implant misc Accuracy |
topic_browse |
misc Dental implant robotic system misc Dynamic navigation system misc Dental implant misc Accuracy |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
BMC oral health |
hierarchy_parent_id |
355500108 |
hierarchy_top_title |
BMC oral health |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)355500108 (DE-600)2091511-1 |
title |
Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR049874349 (SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e |
title_full |
Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study |
author_sort |
Chen, Jianping |
journal |
BMC oral health |
journalStr |
BMC oral health |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2023 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Chen, Jianping Bai, Xiaolei Ding, Yude Shen, Liheng Sun, Xin Cao, Ruijue Yang, Fan Wang, Linhong |
container_volume |
23 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Chen, Jianping |
doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 |
title_sort |
comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study |
title_auth |
Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study |
abstract |
Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. © The Author(s) 2023 |
abstractGer |
Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. © The Author(s) 2023 |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results. © The Author(s) 2023 |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
1 |
title_short |
Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study |
url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Bai, Xiaolei Ding, Yude Shen, Liheng Sun, Xin Cao, Ruijue Yang, Fan Wang, Linhong |
author2Str |
Bai, Xiaolei Ding, Yude Shen, Liheng Sun, Xin Cao, Ruijue Yang, Fan Wang, Linhong |
ppnlink |
355500108 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8 |
up_date |
2024-07-04T02:37:35.395Z |
_version_ |
1803614321795661824 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR049874349</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230331052638.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230329s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR049874349</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12903-023-02873-8-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Jianping</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. Methods 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer’s protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.$ 66^{°} $ respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.$ 71^{°} $ respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. Conclusion The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dental implant robotic system</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dynamic navigation system</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dental implant</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Accuracy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bai, Xiaolei</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ding, Yude</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shen, Liheng</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sun, Xin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cao, Ruijue</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang, Fan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Linhong</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC oral health</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2023), 1 vom: 28. März</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)355500108</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2091511-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6831</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02873-8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.3995266 |