口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (3): 238-242.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2025.03.011

• 口腔种植学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

口腔种植机器人在不同骨倾角下种植精度的体外对比研究

王一茗, 滕微微, 赵文博, 蔡雯昱, 刘一伯, 周立波*   

  1. 佳木斯大学口腔医学院 黑龙江省口腔生物医学材料及临床应用重点实验室,佳木斯大学口腔医学工程实验中心 黑龙江 佳木斯 154000
  • 出版日期:2025-03-28 发布日期:2025-03-25
  • 通讯作者: *周立波,E-mail:zhoulibo0219@gmail.com
  • 作者简介:王一茗,男(1996~ ),辽宁辽阳人,硕士,研究方向:数字化口腔种植。
  • 基金资助:
    中国牙病防治基金会口腔种植科学研究专项基金(编号:COHF ZZZX202410);黑龙江省高等教育教学改革项目(编号:SJGZ20220124)

Comparative Study on Accuracy of Dental Implant Robot under Different Bone Inclinations in Vitro

WANG Yiming, TENG Weiwei, ZHAO Wenbo, CAI Wenyu, LIU Yibo, ZHOU Libo*   

  1. Stomatology College of Jiamusi University, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Materials and Clinical Application, Heilongjiang Province & Experimental Center for Stomatological Engineering, Jiamusi University, Jiamusi 154000, China
  • Online:2025-03-28 Published:2025-03-25

PDF (PC)

17

摘要： 目的: 探讨不同骨倾角对口腔种植机器人种植手术精度的影响。方法: 设计了3种骨倾角模型(分别为45°组、60°组、90°组),采用锥形束计算机断层扫描(cone beam computed tomography,CBCT)对模型进行扫描,并将数据导入机器人系统中进行种植规划。在机器人引导下,分别在3种骨倾角下共植入90枚种植体。术后通过CBCT扫描比较术前规划与实际植入位置的偏差。主要测量指标为种植体植入点、根尖点和角度的总偏差。结果: 在45°组、60°组和90°组中种植体植入点总偏差分别为(0.52±0.15)、(0.36±0.13)和(0.34±0.15) mm,根尖点总偏差分别为(0.64±0.19)、[0.46(0.42,0.55)]和(0.37±0.15) mm,角度总偏差分别为(1.27±0.22)°、(1.09±0.21)°和(0.48±0.22)°,且均存在显著统计学差异(P＜0.05);在种植体植入点横向和深度偏差、根尖点横向和深度偏差也均存在统计学意义(P＜0.05)。结论: 口腔种植机器人在3种骨倾角下均能实现较高的种植精度,达到良好的临床效果,但不同骨倾角之间的种植精度存在一定差异。

关键词: 计算机辅助手术, 精度, 骨倾角, 口腔种植, 口腔种植机器人

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the effect of different bone inclinations on the accuracy of dental implant robot. Methods: Three kinds of bone inclination models (45°, 60°, and 90°) were designed. The models were scanned by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and the data were imported into the robot system for implant planning. Under the guidance of the robot,a total of 90 implants were implanted at three bone inclinations. The deviation between preoperative implant and actual implantation position was compared by CBCT scan after operation. The main measurement indexes were implant angle deviation, and total deviation of entry and apex. Results: In the 45°, 60°, and 90° groups, the entry deviations were (0.52±0.15) mm, (0.36±0.13) mm, and (0.34±0.15) mm, respectively, the apical deviations were (0.64±0.19) mm, [0.46 (0.42,0.55)] mm, and (0.37±0.15) mm, respectively, and the angle deviations were (1.27±0.22)°, (1.09±0.21)°, and (0.48±0.22)°, respectively (P< 0.05). There were also statistically significant differences in the entry level and depth deviations and the apical level and depth deviations of the apical point (P<0.05). Conclusion: The dental implant robotic system achieved high implant accuracy at all three bone inclinations, demonstrating good clinical outcomes. However, there were differences in accuracy between different bone inclinations.

Key words: computer-assisted surgery, accuracy, bone inclination, dental implant, dental implant robot