Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science) >

2024 , Vol. 44 >Issue 11: 1433 - 1438

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2024.11.010

Techniques and methods

Analysis of accuracy and time for the two-in-one navigation registration technique in dynamic navigation implantation: an in vitro study

  • Min XU ,
  • Shimin WEI ,
  • Junyu SHI ,
  • Hongchang LAI
Expand
  • Department of Dental Implantation, 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 Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai 200011, China
LAI Hongchang, E-mail: lhc9@hotmail.com.

Received date: 2024-04-25

  Accepted date: 2024-06-18

  Online published: 2024-11-28

Fold

Abstract

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.

Key words： two-in-one registration technique; U-shaped tube registration technique; dynamic navigation; time for registration procedure; accuracy analysis; in vitro model study

Cite this article

Min XU , Shimin WEI , Junyu SHI , Hongchang LAI . Analysis of accuracy and time for the two-in-one navigation registration technique in dynamic navigation implantation: an in vitro study[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2024 , 44(11) : 1433 -1438 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2024.11.010

References

1 BEHNEKE A, BURWINKEL M, BEHNEKE N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2012, 23(4): 416-423.
2 WEI S M, ZHU Y, WEI J X, et al. Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021, 32(4): 383-393.
3 EGGERS G, MüHLING J, MARMULLA R. Image-to-patient registration techniques in head surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2006, 35(12): 1081-1095.
4 FAN S C, HUNG K, BORNSTEIN M M, et al. The effect of the configurations of fiducial markers on accuracy of surgical navigation in zygomatic implant placement: an in vitro study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2019, 34(1): 85-90.
5 WIDMANN G, ZANGERL A, SCHULLIAN P, et al. Do image modality and registration method influence the accuracy of craniofacial navigation?[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 70(9): 2165-2173.
6 MA F F, SUN F, WEI T, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of two different dynamic navigation system registration methods for dental implant placement: a retrospective study[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2022, 24(3): 352-360.
7 WEI S M, SHI J Y, QIAO S C, et al. Accuracy and primary stability of tapered or straight implants placed into fresh extraction socket using dynamic navigation: a randomized controlled clinical trial[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2022, 26(3): 2733-2741.
8 WU B Z, SUN F. A registration-and-fixation approach with handpiece adjustment for dynamic navigation in dental implant surgery[J]. Heliyon, 2022, 8(9): e10565.
9 SIESSEGGER M, SCHNEIDER B T, MISCHKOWSKI R A, et al. Use of an image-guided navigation system in dental implant surgery in anatomically complex operation sites[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2001, 29(5): 276-281.
10 EWERS R, SCHICHO K, TRUPPE M, et al. Computer-aided navigation in dental implantology: 7 years of clinical experience[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2004, 62(3): 329-334.
11 DE SOUZA A B, KANG M, NEGREIROS W M, et al. A comparative retrospective study of different surgical guide designs for static computer-assisted implant surgery in posterior single edentulous sites[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2022, 33(1): 45-52.
12 JORBA-GARCíA A, GONZáLEZ-BARNADAS A, CAMPS-FONT O, et al. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(5): 2479-2494.
13 BLOCK M, EMERY R, LANK K, et al. Implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2017, 32(1): 92-99.
14 WIDMANN G, BALE R J. Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery: a review[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2017, 32(1): 92-99.
15 WIDMANN G, STOFFNER R, SCHULLIAN P, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of invasive and noninvasive registration methods for image-guided oral implant surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2010, 25(3): 491-498.
16 GOLOB DEEB J, BENCHARIT S, CARRICO C K, et al. Exploring training dental implant placement using computer-guided implant navigation system for predoctoral students: a pilot study[J]. Eur J Dent Educ, 2019, 23(4): 415-423.
17 EMERY R W, MERRITT S A, LANK K, et al. Accuracy of dynamic navigation for dental implant placement-model-based evaluation[J]. J Oral Implantol, 2016, 42(5): 399-405.
18 JUNG R E, SCHNEIDER D, GANELES J, et al. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2009, 24(Suppl): 92-109.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉