Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Statement Of Problem: The static computer-aided implant system (S-CAIS), dynamic computer-aided implant system (D-CAIS), and robotic computer-aided implant system (R-CAIS) have been used to improve the accuracy of implant placement. However, the accuracy of freehand (FH),S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS implant placement has not been compared and verified under identical conditions.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using S-CAIS, D-CAIS, R-CAIS, and FH techniques under identical conditions.
Material And Methods: A total of 60 standardized polyurethane resin models with missing mandibular teeth were prepared and divided into 4 groups: FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS, each consisting of 15 models. Preoperative implant planning was performed using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and 2 implants were placed in each model using the FH, S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and R-CAIS techniques, respectively. Postoperatively, CBCT scans were made for analysis of the entry, apical, and angle deviations. The error results among groups were compared using 1-way analysis of variance or a nonparametric test. The Dunnett test was used for post hoc comparison (α=.05).
Results: The mean ±standard deviation values for entry deviation were 1.09 ±0.33 mm for the FH group, 0.72 ±0.33 mm for S-CAIS, 0.69 ±0.29 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.48 ±0.18 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean (quartiles) apical deviations were 1.01 (0.94 -1.22) for the FH group, and the mean ±standard deviation values were 0.87 ±0.07 mm for the S-CAIS group, 0.64 ±0.05 mm for D-CAIS, and 0.47 ±0.03 mm for R-CAIS (P<.05). The mean ±standard deviation values for angle deviation for the FH group were 2.74 ±0.84 degrees, 1.99 ±0.76 degrees for S-CAIS, 0.85 ±0.46 degrees for D-CAIS, and 0.53 ±0.20 degrees for R-CAIS (P<.05).
Conclusions: R-CAIS is a reliable implant placement method, demonstrating better implant accuracy compared with the S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and FH techniques.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.013 | DOI Listing |