目的:这项前瞻性研究的目的是根据专业知识水平确定虚拟单齿种植体定位的个体间和个体内变异性,专业,总花费时间,以及使用假牙设置。
方法:在匹配的拔牙前后口内扫描(IOS)上执行虚拟植入计划,和15例患者的锥形束计算机断层扫描。十二个独立的考官,涉及六名来自口腔外科和口腔修复学的新手和专家定位植入物,首先基于仅利用后提取的解剖标志,其次,使用预提取IOS作为设置。记录植入物定位的时间。一个月后,所有的虚拟规划都被再次执行.使用软件算法将各个植入物位置叠加以获得3D偏差。
结果:具有平均角度的个体间差异,crestal,根尖位置偏差为3.8±1.94°,1.11±0.55和1.54±0.66mm,分别,找到了。在评估个体差异时,偏差为3.28±1.99°,0.78±0.46和1.12±0.61mm,分别,被观察到。与新手计划的植入物相比,专家计划的植入物在统计上显示出较低的偏差。更长的计划时间导致专家组的偏差较低,但新手却没有。口腔外科医生展示了下颌,但没有比牙齿修复医生的角度和根尖偏差。设置的使用仅导致较小的调整。
结论:在使用专门的软件规划进行植入物定位的过程中,存在显著的个体间和个体内差异。专业知识水平和投入的时间影响了计划序列中植入物位置的偏差。
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the inter- and intraindividual variability in virtual single-tooth implant positioning based on the level of expertise, specialty, total time spent, and the use of a prosthetic tooth setup.
METHODS: Virtual implant planning was performed on matched pre- and post-extraction intraoral scans (IOS), and cone-beam computed tomography scans of 15 patients. Twelve individual examiners, involving six novices and experts from oral surgery and prosthodontics positioned the implants, first based on anatomical landmarks utilizing only the post-extraction, and second with the use of the pre-extraction IOS as a setup. The time for implant positioning was recorded. After 1 month, all virtual plannings were performed again. The individual implant positions were superimposed to obtain 3D deviations using a software algorithm.
RESULTS: An interindividual variability with mean angular, crestal, and apical positional deviations of 3.8 ± 1.94°, 1.11 ± 0.55, and 1.54 ± 0.66 mm, respectively, was found. When assessing intraindividual variability, deviations of 3.28 ± 1.99°, 0.78 ± 0.46, and 1.12 ± 0.61 mm, respectively, were observed. Implants planned by experts exhibited statistically lower deviations compared to those planned by novices. Longer planning times resulted in lower deviations in the experts\' group but not in the novices. Oral surgeons demonstrated lower crestal, but not angular and apical deviations than prosthodontists. The use of a setup only led to minor adjustments.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial inter- and intraindividual variability exists during implant positioning utilizing specialized software planning. The level of expertise and the time invested influenced the deviations of the implant position during the planning sequence.