数字化配准法测量种植体植入精度分析

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2023.03.013

上海口腔医学 ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (3): 287-291.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2023.03.013

数字化配准法测量种植体植入精度分析

连梅菲, 张修银, 唐天弘^*, 忻贤贞^*

上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院口腔修复科,上海交通大学口腔医学院,国家口腔医学中心, 国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心,上海市口腔医学重点实验室,上海市口腔医学研究所,上海 200011

收稿日期:2022-02-09 修回日期:2022-05-26 出版日期:2023-06-25 发布日期:2023-06-28
通讯作者: 唐天弘,E-mail: 463497507@qq.com;忻贤贞,E-mail: kristyxxz@126.com。^*共同通信作者
作者简介:连梅菲（1991-）,女,博士,E-mail: ddslianmf@163.com
基金资助:
兰州市卫生科技发展计划项目（2019-034）

Research of implant accuracy using a digital registration method

LIAN Mei-fei, ZHANG Xiu-yin, TANG Tian-hong, XIN Xian-zhen

Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology. Shanghai 200011, China

Received:2022-02-09 Revised:2022-05-26 Online:2023-06-25 Published:2023-06-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：建立一种新的数字化配准法,测量种植体植入精度,并与传统锥体束CT（CBCT）进行对比。方法：根据纳入和排除标准,纳入24例患者的36颗种植体作为研究对象,分别采用传统CBCT法和数字化配准法对种植体植入精度进行测量分析。测量参数为种植体颈部偏差(d1)、根尖部偏差(d2)和角度偏差(α)。采用SPSS 19.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果：传统CBCT法测量精度为种植体颈部（0.88±0.64） mm,种植体根尖部（1.07±0.85） mm,角度（4.74±2.35）°;数字化配准法测量的精度为种植体颈部（0.86±0.67） mm,种植体根尖部（1.12±0.88） mm,角度（4.56±2.66）°;两者之间无统计学差异（P>0.05）。结论：数字化配准法的测量精度与传统CBCT无显著差异,可用于临床实践。

关键词: 植入精度, 种植体位置, 数字化配准

Abstract: PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to introduce a new method to evaluate the clinical accuracy of implant position. The results were compared to traditional cone beam CT (CBCT) method. METHODS: A total of 36 implants from 24 patients with sufficient bone volume were enrolled into the study. CBCT method and digital registration method were compared to evaluate the accuracy of implant position. The measurement parameters were defined as deviations between ideal and postsurgical implant position at occlusal point(d1), apical point(d2) and axis(α). The deviations between two methods were analyzed with SPSS 19.0 software package. RESULTS: The deviations between ideal and postsurgical implant position using CBCT were (0.88±0.64) mm for occlusal point, (1.07±0.85) mm for apical point and (4.74±2.35)° for angle. In digital registration method, the deviations were (0.86±0.67) mm for occlusal point, (1.12±0.88) mm for apical point and (4.56±2.66)° for angle. No significant difference(P>0.05) was found between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the two methods in evaluating the clinical accuracy of implant position. Digital registration method could be accepted in clinical application.

Key words: Accuracy, Implant position, Digital registration

中图分类号:

R782.1

连梅菲, 张修银, 唐天弘, 忻贤贞. 数字化配准法测量种植体植入精度分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2023, 32(3): 287-291.

LIAN Mei-fei, ZHANG Xiu-yin, TANG Tian-hong, XIN Xian-zhen. Research of implant accuracy using a digital registration method[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2023, 32(3): 287-291.

参考文献

[1] 林野. 我国口腔种植学的发展现状与思考[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2007, 42(11): 641-645.
[2] Hultin M, Svensson KG, Trulsson M.Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: a systematic review[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2012, 23(Suppl 6): 124-135.
[3] Kühl S, Zürcher S, Mahid T, et al.Accuracy of full guided vs. half-guided implant surgery[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2013, 24(7): 763-769.
[4] Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I.Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2012, 108(3): 181-188.
[5] Shaheen E, Khalil W, Ezeldeen M, et al.Accuracy of segmentation of tooth structures using 3 different CBCT machines[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2017, 123(1): 123-128.
[6] Koong B.Cone beam imaging: is this the ultimate imaging modality?[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2010, 21(11): 1201-1208.
[7] Schnutenhaus S, Edelmann C, Rudolph H, et al.Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2016, 121(4): e72-e79
[8] Platzer S, Bertha G, Heschl A, et al.Three-dimensional accuracy of guided implant placement: indirect assessment of clinical outcomes[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2013, 15(5): 724-734.
[9] Komiyama A, Pettersson A, Hultin M, et al.Virtually planned and template-guided implant surgery: an experimental model matching approach[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2011, 22(3): 308-313.
[10] Almhdie A, Léger C, Deriche M, et al.3D registration using a new implementation of the ICP algorithm based on a comprehensive lookup matrix: application to medical imaging[J]. Pattern Recognit Lett, 2007, 28(12): 1523-1533.
[11] Liang X, Lambrichts I, Sun Y, et al.A comparative evaluation of cone beam computed tomography(CBCT) and multi-slice CT (MSCT). part Ⅱ: on 3D model accuracy[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2010, 75(2): 270-274.
[12] Jung W, Park S, Shin H. Combining volumetric dental CT and optical scan data for teeth modeling[J]. Comput Aided Des, 2015, 67-68: 24-37.
[13] 陈小平, 黄慧. 数字化印模准确度的研究现状[J]. 口腔材料器械杂志, 2018, 27(2): 98-100.
[14] Shen P, Zhao J, Fan L, et al.Accuracy evaluation of computer-designed surgical guide template in oral implantology[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2015, 43(10): 2189-2194.
[15] Wang D, Künzel A, Golubovic V, et al.Accuracy of peri-implant bone thickness and validity of assessing bone augmentation material using cone beam computed tomography[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2013, 17(6): 1601-1609.
[16] Flügge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, et al.Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - a prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(9): 1113-1118.
[17] Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al.Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(11): 1360-1367.

数字化配准法测量种植体植入精度分析

Research of implant accuracy using a digital registration method

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价