Abstract：
This in vitro study aimed at comparing the accuracy of freehand implant placement with static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS), utilizing a keyless and a drill-key implant system and two guide-hole designs.
A total of 108 implants were placed in 18 partially edentulous maxillary models simulating two different alveolar ridge morphologies. 3D digital deviations between pre-planned and post-operative implant positions were obtained. Guide material reduction was assessed in the keyless implant system for the manufacturer\'s sleeve and sleeveless guide-hole designs.
sCAIS using a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated smaller mean angular, crestal and apical deviations compared to sCAIS utilizing a manufacturer\'s sleeve and the freehand group (2.6 ± 1.6°, vs 3.3 ± 1.9°, vs 4.0 ± 1.9°; 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.8 ± 0.3 mm; and 1.0 ± 0.5 mm, vs 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, vs 1.5 ± 0.6 mm). Smaller angular and apical mean deviations were observed in the keyless implant system as compared with the drill-key implant system (3.1 ± 1.7°, vs 3.5 ± 1.9°, p = 0.03; and 1.2 ± 0.6 mm, vs 1.4 ± 0.7 mm, p = 0.045). Overall, smaller angular, crestal, and apical deviations (p < 0.0001) were observed in healed alveolar ridges (2.4 ± 1.7°, 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.9 ± 0.5 mm) than in extraction sockets (4.2 ± 1.6°, 0.8 ± 0.3 mm, and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm). Higher mean volumetric material reduction was observed in sleeveless than in manufacturer\'s sleeve guide-holes (- 0.10 ± 0.15 mm3, vs - 0.03 ± 0.03 mm3, p = 0.006).
Higher final implant positional accuracy was observed in sCAIS for the keyless implant system, with a sleeveless guide-hole design, and in healed ridges. Sleeveless guide holes resulted in higher volumetric material reduction compared with the manufacturer\'s sleeve.
A total of 108 implants were placed in 18 partially edentulous maxillary models simulating two different alveolar ridge morphologies. 3D digital deviations between pre-planned and post-operative implant positions were obtained. Guide material reduction was assessed in the keyless implant system for the manufacturer\'s sleeve and sleeveless guide-hole designs.
sCAIS using a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated smaller mean angular, crestal and apical deviations compared to sCAIS utilizing a manufacturer\'s sleeve and the freehand group (2.6 ± 1.6°, vs 3.3 ± 1.9°, vs 4.0 ± 1.9°; 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.8 ± 0.3 mm; and 1.0 ± 0.5 mm, vs 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, vs 1.5 ± 0.6 mm). Smaller angular and apical mean deviations were observed in the keyless implant system as compared with the drill-key implant system (3.1 ± 1.7°, vs 3.5 ± 1.9°, p = 0.03; and 1.2 ± 0.6 mm, vs 1.4 ± 0.7 mm, p = 0.045). Overall, smaller angular, crestal, and apical deviations (p < 0.0001) were observed in healed alveolar ridges (2.4 ± 1.7°, 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.9 ± 0.5 mm) than in extraction sockets (4.2 ± 1.6°, 0.8 ± 0.3 mm, and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm). Higher mean volumetric material reduction was observed in sleeveless than in manufacturer\'s sleeve guide-holes (- 0.10 ± 0.15 mm3, vs - 0.03 ± 0.03 mm3, p = 0.006).
Higher final implant positional accuracy was observed in sCAIS for the keyless implant system, with a sleeveless guide-hole design, and in healed ridges. Sleeveless guide holes resulted in higher volumetric material reduction compared with the manufacturer\'s sleeve.
摘要：
目的：这项体外研究旨在比较徒手植入物放置与静态计算机辅助植入物手术（sCAIS）的准确性，利用无钥匙和钻键植入系统和两个导向孔设计。
方法：将总共108个植入物放置在18个部分无牙的上颌模型中，模拟了两种不同的牙槽突形态。获得了预先计划的植入物位置和术后植入物位置之间的3D数字偏差。在制造商的套筒和无袖导孔设计的无钥匙植入系统中评估了导向材料的减少。
结果：使用无袖导孔设计的sCAIS显示出更小的平均角度，与使用制造商的套筒和徒手组的sCAIS相比，蠕动和顶端偏差(2.6±1.6°，vs3.3±1.9°，vs4.0±1.9°;0.5±0.3mm,vs.0.6±0.3mm，与0.8±0.3mm和1.0±0.5mm相比，vs1.2±0.7mm，vs1.5±0.6mm)。与钻键植入系统相比，无键植入系统的角度和顶端平均偏差较小（3.1±1.7°，vs3.5±1.9°，p=0.03;和1.2±0.6mm,vs1.4±0.7mm，p=0.045)。总的来说,更小的角度，crestal,在愈合的牙槽脊（2.4±1.7°，0.5±0.3mm,和0.9±0.5mm)比拔出插座(4.2±1.6°,0.8±0.3mm,和1.6±0.5毫米)。与制造商的套筒导孔相比，无袖的平均体积材料减少量更高（-0.10±0.15mm3，vs-0.03±0.03mm3，p=0.006）。
结论：在无钥匙植入系统的sCAIS中观察到更高的最终植入物位置准确性，无袖导孔设计，在愈合的山脊中。与制造商的套筒相比，无袖导孔导致更高的体积材料减少。
方法：将总共108个植入物放置在18个部分无牙的上颌模型中，模拟了两种不同的牙槽突形态。获得了预先计划的植入物位置和术后植入物位置之间的3D数字偏差。在制造商的套筒和无袖导孔设计的无钥匙植入系统中评估了导向材料的减少。
结果：使用无袖导孔设计的sCAIS显示出更小的平均角度，与使用制造商的套筒和徒手组的sCAIS相比，蠕动和顶端偏差(2.6±1.6°，vs3.3±1.9°，vs4.0±1.9°;0.5±0.3mm,vs.0.6±0.3mm，与0.8±0.3mm和1.0±0.5mm相比，vs1.2±0.7mm，vs1.5±0.6mm)。与钻键植入系统相比，无键植入系统的角度和顶端平均偏差较小（3.1±1.7°，vs3.5±1.9°，p=0.03;和1.2±0.6mm,vs1.4±0.7mm，p=0.045)。总的来说,更小的角度，crestal,在愈合的牙槽脊（2.4±1.7°，0.5±0.3mm,和0.9±0.5mm)比拔出插座(4.2±1.6°,0.8±0.3mm,和1.6±0.5毫米)。与制造商的套筒导孔相比，无袖的平均体积材料减少量更高（-0.10±0.15mm3，vs-0.03±0.03mm3，p=0.006）。
结论：在无钥匙植入系统的sCAIS中观察到更高的最终植入物位置准确性，无袖导孔设计，在愈合的山脊中。与制造商的套筒相比，无袖导孔导致更高的体积材料减少。
