The influence of radiographic marker registration versus a markerless trace registration method on the implant placement accuracy achieved by dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. An in-vitro study

dc.contributor.authorJorba García, Adrià
dc.contributor.authorBara Casaus, Javier
dc.contributor.authorCamps Font, Octavi
dc.contributor.authorBarbosa de Figueiredo, Rui Pedro
dc.contributor.authorValmaseda Castellón, Eduardo
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-22T18:30:07Z
dc.date.available2025-01-22T18:30:07Z
dc.date.issued2024-07-01
dc.date.updated2025-01-22T18:30:07Z
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study aimed to compare the effect the radiographic marker registration (RMR) and markerless tracing registration (MTR) on implant placement accuracy using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS). Additionally, this study aimed to assess the surgical time and whether the implant location influences the accuracy of the two registration methods. Methods: 136 dental implants were randomly allocated to the RMR or MTR group and were placed with a dCAIS in resin models. Preoperative and postoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomograms (CBCT) were overlaid and implant placement accuracy was assessed. Descriptive and multivariate analysis of the data was performed. Results: Significant differences (P < 0.001) were found for all accuracy variables except angular deviation (RMR:4.30° (SD:4.37°); MTR:3.89° (SD:3.32°)). The RMR had a mean 3D platform deviation of 1.53 mm (SD:0.98 mm) and mean apex 3D deviation of 1.63 mm (SD:1.05 mm) while the MTR had lower values (0.83 mm (SD:0.67 mm) and 1.07 mm (SD:0.86 mm), respectively). In the MTR group, implant placement in the anterior mandible was more accurate (p < 0.05). Additionally, MTR did not significantly increase the surgical time compared with RMR (P = 0.489). Conclusions: MTR seems to increase the accuracy of implant placement using dCAIS in comparison with the RMR method, without increasing the surgical time. The operated area seems to be relevant and might influence the implant deviations. Clinical significance: Considering the limitations of this in-vitro study, MTR seems to provide a higher accuracy in implant placement using dCAIS without increasing the surgical time. Furthermore, this method does not require radiographic markers and allows re-registration during surgery.
dc.format.extent8 p.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.idgrec750708
dc.identifier.issn0300-5712
dc.identifier.pmid38763387
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2445/217843
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105072
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Dentistry, 2024, vol. 146
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105072
dc.rightscc-by-nc (c) Jorba-García, Adrià et al., 2024
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)
dc.subject.classificationTomografia
dc.subject.classificationImplants dentals intraossis
dc.subject.classificationCirurgia oral
dc.subject.otherTomography
dc.subject.otherEndosseous dental implants
dc.subject.otherOral surgery
dc.titleThe influence of radiographic marker registration versus a markerless trace registration method on the implant placement accuracy achieved by dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. An in-vitro study
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
867666.pdf
Size:
5.49 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format