目的·通过对比分析动态导航引导下固配二合一配准方式和U型管配准方式的种植精度和时间，评估固配二合一配准方式的精度和用时。方法·将30个下颌后牙单牙缺损的标准化3D打印模型随机分为3组：固配二合一配准组、U型管配准组及自由手种植组。通过易植美口腔种植手术导航系统设计种植手术方案，拍摄模型的术前及术后锥形束CT影像，测量各组种植体实际种植位置与设计种植位置的植入点误差、末端点误差和角度误差。记录不同配准方式进行配准操作的时间。基于单因素方差分析与SNK（Student-Newman-Keuls）检验对各组的植入点误差、末端点误差和角度误差3个指标进行统计学分析。结果·固配二合一配准组与U型管配准组在植入点误差、末端点误差及角度误差上差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；固配二合一配准组及U型管配准组的植入点误差、末端点误差及角度误差均低于自由手种植组，差异均存在统计学意义（P<0.001）。固配二合一配准过程用时短于U型管配准过程用时，差异存在显著统计学意义（P<0.001）。结论·动态导航引导下在下颌后牙单牙缺失的模型上使用固配二合一的配准方式种植的精度与U型管配准方式种植的精度相似。固配二合一配准过程较U型管配准过程耗时更短，操作更便捷。

Objective ·To assess the accuracy and time of the two-in-one registration technique by comparing it with the U-shaped tube registration in dynamic navigation implantation. Methods ·Thirty standardized 3D-printed models with mandibular posterior sites missing a single tooth were randomly divided into three groups: two-in-one registration group, U-shaped tube registration group and free-hand implantation group, and the implant surgical plan was designed by the “YIZHIMEI” DCARER oral implant surgery navigation system. Cone beam CT before and after operation was taken. The implant platform deviation, implant apex deviation and angular deviation of the actual implant positions and the designed implant positions were measured. The operating time for using two-in-one registration technique and the U-shaped tube registration technique was recorded to evaluate the complexity of the two registration techniques. The one-way ANOVA and SNK (Student-Newman-Keuls) test were used to analyze the implant platform deviation, implant apex deviation and angular deviation of each group. Results ·There were no statistically significant differences in implant platform deviation, implant apex deviation and angular deviation between the two-in-one registration group and the U-shaped tube registration group (P>0.05). However, the implant platform deviation, implant apex deviation and angular deviation of the two-in-one registration group and the U-shaped tube group were lower than those in the free-hand implantation group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.001). The operating time required for the two-in-one registration was shorter than that for the U-shaped tube registration process, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). Conclusion ·The accuracy of the two-in-one dynamic navigation registration technique used in implanting on a model of mandibular posterior sites missing a single tooth is similar to that of the U-shaped tube dynamic navigation registration technique. But the two-in-one registration takes less time for registration procedure than the U-shaped tube registration, and is easier to operate.