Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether inexperienced users applying a static navigation system can perform in-vitro a fully guided implant placement protocol and achieve similar results in terms of accuracy compared to experienced clinicians.
METHODS: Based on 36 identical resin models, a computer-assisted implant planning was performed and a surgical guide was produced accordingly. Three study groups were composed with 12 operators, each: control group with experienced surgeons (DOC), test group 1 with dental technicians (TEC) and test group 2 with non-specialists (OFC). Using a fully guided drilling protocol, two implants were placed into each of the 36 models. Subsequently, the differences between the virtually planned and final implant positions were determined and the transfer accuracy was evaluated.
RESULTS: For the control group DOC, the mean value of axial deviation was 1.90 ± 1.15 degrees, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant base 0.52 ± 0.33 mm, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant tip 0.76 ± 0.39 mm and for vertical deviation at the implant tip - 0.11 ± 0.51 mm. For corresponding parameters, the mean values of test group TEC were 1.99 ± 0.87 degrees, 0.42 ± 0.21 mm, 0.68 ± 0.30 mm and - 0.03 ± 0.33 mm and for test group OFC 2.29 ± 1.17 degrees, 0.63 ± 0.35 mm, 0.89 ± 0.43 mm and - 0.24 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. The results did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the control and the 2 test groups (p˃0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present in-vitro study demonstrated that inexperienced users applying a static navigation system can perform a fully guided implant placement protocol and achieve similar results in terms of accuracy compared to experienced clinicians in this specific in vitro setup.
METHODS: Based on 36 identical resin models, a computer-assisted implant planning was performed and a surgical guide was produced accordingly. Three study groups were composed with 12 operators, each: control group with experienced surgeons (DOC), test group 1 with dental technicians (TEC) and test group 2 with non-specialists (OFC). Using a fully guided drilling protocol, two implants were placed into each of the 36 models. Subsequently, the differences between the virtually planned and final implant positions were determined and the transfer accuracy was evaluated.
RESULTS: For the control group DOC, the mean value of axial deviation was 1.90 ± 1.15 degrees, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant base 0.52 ± 0.33 mm, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant tip 0.76 ± 0.39 mm and for vertical deviation at the implant tip - 0.11 ± 0.51 mm. For corresponding parameters, the mean values of test group TEC were 1.99 ± 0.87 degrees, 0.42 ± 0.21 mm, 0.68 ± 0.30 mm and - 0.03 ± 0.33 mm and for test group OFC 2.29 ± 1.17 degrees, 0.63 ± 0.35 mm, 0.89 ± 0.43 mm and - 0.24 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. The results did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the control and the 2 test groups (p˃0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present in-vitro study demonstrated that inexperienced users applying a static navigation system can perform a fully guided implant placement protocol and achieve similar results in terms of accuracy compared to experienced clinicians in this specific in vitro setup.
摘要：
目的：调查应用静态导航系统的无经验用户是否可以在体外执行完全引导的植入物放置方案，并与有经验的临床医生相比，在准确性方面获得相似的结果。
方法：基于36种相同的树脂模型，我们进行了计算机辅助植入计划,并制作了相应的手术指南.三个研究组由12名操作员组成，每个：对照组有经验丰富的外科医生（DOC），测试组1与牙科技术人员（TEC）和测试组2与非专家（OFC）。使用完全引导的钻井协议，36个模型中的每一个都放置了两个植入物。随后，我们确定了实际计划植入位置和最终植入位置之间的差异,并评估了转移准确性.
结果：对于对照组DOC，轴向偏差的平均值为1.90±1.15度，对于植入物底部的三维偏差0.52±0.33mm，植入物尖端的三维偏差为0.76±0.39mm，植入物尖端的垂直偏差为0.11±0.51mm。对于相应的参数，试验组TEC的平均值为1.99±0.87度，0.42±0.21mm,0.68±0.30mm和-0.03±0.33mm,试验组OFC为2.29±1.17度,0.63±0.35mm,0.89±0.43mm和-0.24±0.57mm，分别。结果在对照组和2个测试组之间没有显示任何统计学上的显著差异(p^0.05)。
结论：本体外研究的结果表明，与有经验的临床医生相比，应用静态导航系统的无经验用户可以执行完全引导的植入物放置方案，并在准确性方面获得相似的结果。
方法：基于36种相同的树脂模型，我们进行了计算机辅助植入计划,并制作了相应的手术指南.三个研究组由12名操作员组成，每个：对照组有经验丰富的外科医生（DOC），测试组1与牙科技术人员（TEC）和测试组2与非专家（OFC）。使用完全引导的钻井协议，36个模型中的每一个都放置了两个植入物。随后，我们确定了实际计划植入位置和最终植入位置之间的差异,并评估了转移准确性.
结果：对于对照组DOC，轴向偏差的平均值为1.90±1.15度，对于植入物底部的三维偏差0.52±0.33mm，植入物尖端的三维偏差为0.76±0.39mm，植入物尖端的垂直偏差为0.11±0.51mm。对于相应的参数，试验组TEC的平均值为1.99±0.87度，0.42±0.21mm,0.68±0.30mm和-0.03±0.33mm,试验组OFC为2.29±1.17度,0.63±0.35mm,0.89±0.43mm和-0.24±0.57mm，分别。结果在对照组和2个测试组之间没有显示任何统计学上的显著差异(p^0.05)。
结论：本体外研究的结果表明，与有经验的临床医生相比，应用静态导航系统的无经验用户可以执行完全引导的植入物放置方案，并在准确性方面获得相似的结果。
