Abstract：
This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement in partially edentulous maxillary models using a mixed reality-based dynamic navigation (MR-DN) system to conventional static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) and a freehand (FH) method.
Forty-five partially edentulous models (with teeth missing in positions #15, #16 and #25) were assigned to three groups (15 per group). The same experienced operator performed the model surgeries using an MR-DN system (group 1), s-CAIS (group 2) and FH (group 3). In total, 135 dental implants were placed (45 per group). The primary outcomes were the linear coronal deviation (entry error; En), apical deviation (apex error; Ap), XY and Z deviations, and angular deviation (An) between the planned and actual (post-surgery) position of the implants in the models. These deviations were computed as the distances between the stereolithographic (STL) files for the planned implants and placed implants captured with an intraoral scanner.
Across the three implant sites, the MR-DN system was significantly more accurate than the FH method (in XY, Z, En, Ap and An) and s-CAIS (in Z, Ap and An), respectively. However, S-CAIS was more accurate than MR-DN in XY, and no difference was found between MR-DN and s-CAIS in En.
Within the limits of this study (in vitro design, only partially edentulous models), implant placement accuracy with MR-DN was superior to that of FH and similar to that of s-CAIS.
In vitro, MR-DN showed greater accuracy in implant positioning than FH, and similar accuracy to s-CAIS: it could, therefore, represent a new option for the surgeon. However, clinical studies are needed to determine the feasibility of MR-DN.
Forty-five partially edentulous models (with teeth missing in positions #15, #16 and #25) were assigned to three groups (15 per group). The same experienced operator performed the model surgeries using an MR-DN system (group 1), s-CAIS (group 2) and FH (group 3). In total, 135 dental implants were placed (45 per group). The primary outcomes were the linear coronal deviation (entry error; En), apical deviation (apex error; Ap), XY and Z deviations, and angular deviation (An) between the planned and actual (post-surgery) position of the implants in the models. These deviations were computed as the distances between the stereolithographic (STL) files for the planned implants and placed implants captured with an intraoral scanner.
Across the three implant sites, the MR-DN system was significantly more accurate than the FH method (in XY, Z, En, Ap and An) and s-CAIS (in Z, Ap and An), respectively. However, S-CAIS was more accurate than MR-DN in XY, and no difference was found between MR-DN and s-CAIS in En.
Within the limits of this study (in vitro design, only partially edentulous models), implant placement accuracy with MR-DN was superior to that of FH and similar to that of s-CAIS.
In vitro, MR-DN showed greater accuracy in implant positioning than FH, and similar accuracy to s-CAIS: it could, therefore, represent a new option for the surgeon. However, clinical studies are needed to determine the feasibility of MR-DN.
摘要：
目的：这项体外研究旨在比较使用基于混合现实的动态导航（MR-DN）系统与常规静态计算机植入辅助手术（s-CAIS）和徒手（FH）方法在部分无牙上颌模型中种植牙的准确性。
方法：将45个部分缺牙模型（在15号，16号和25号位置缺失牙齿）分为三组（每组15个）。同一位有经验的操作员使用MR-DN系统进行了模型手术（第1组），s-CAIS(第2组)和FH(第3组)。总的来说,放置135个牙科植入物(每组45个)。主要结果是线性冠状偏差(输入误差；En)，根尖偏差（顶点误差；Ap），XY和Z偏差，以及模型中植入物计划和实际（手术后）位置之间的角度偏差（An）。这些偏差被计算为计划植入物的立体光刻(STL)文件与用口内扫描仪捕获的放置植入物之间的距离。
结果：在三个植入部位，MR-DN系统明显比FH方法更准确(在XY，Z,恩，Ap和An)和s-CAIS(以Z为单位，Ap和An),分别。然而,在XY中，S-CAIS比MR-DN更准确，在En中，MR-DN和s-CAIS之间没有发现差异。
结论：在本研究的范围内（体外设计，仅部分无牙模型)，MR-DN的植入物放置精度优于FH，与s-CAIS相似。
■体外，MR-DN在植入物定位方面显示出比FH更高的准确性，和s-CAIS的精确度相似:它可以，因此,代表外科医生的新选择。然而,需要临床研究来确定MR-DN的可行性。
方法：将45个部分缺牙模型（在15号，16号和25号位置缺失牙齿）分为三组（每组15个）。同一位有经验的操作员使用MR-DN系统进行了模型手术（第1组），s-CAIS(第2组)和FH(第3组)。总的来说,放置135个牙科植入物(每组45个)。主要结果是线性冠状偏差(输入误差；En)，根尖偏差（顶点误差；Ap），XY和Z偏差，以及模型中植入物计划和实际（手术后）位置之间的角度偏差（An）。这些偏差被计算为计划植入物的立体光刻(STL)文件与用口内扫描仪捕获的放置植入物之间的距离。
结果：在三个植入部位，MR-DN系统明显比FH方法更准确(在XY，Z,恩，Ap和An)和s-CAIS(以Z为单位，Ap和An),分别。然而,在XY中，S-CAIS比MR-DN更准确，在En中，MR-DN和s-CAIS之间没有发现差异。
结论：在本研究的范围内（体外设计，仅部分无牙模型)，MR-DN的植入物放置精度优于FH，与s-CAIS相似。
■体外，MR-DN在植入物定位方面显示出比FH更高的准确性，和s-CAIS的精确度相似:它可以，因此,代表外科医生的新选择。然而,需要临床研究来确定MR-DN的可行性。
