Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Prosthet Dent ; 2024 Sep 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39278812

RESUMEN

Dynamic navigation-guided zygomatic implant (ZI) surgery has been a preferred option for achieving optimal prosthetic-driven implant placement. However, during the actual surgical procedure, surgical execution may still be hindered by environmental factors such as mouth opening. A fully digital planning protocol is described that integrated the patient's maxillofacial soft tissue information and virtual surgical handpiece with the drills on the implant planning path to ensure the precise, time-saving, and smooth implementation of dynamic navigation-guided ZI surgery.

2.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37248610

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement in a single tooth gap, including the postextraction site and healed site, using a task-autonomous robotic system and a dynamic navigation system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty partially edentulous models requiring both immediate and conventional implant placement were randomly divided into a robotic system group and a navigation system group. The coronal, apical, and angular deviations of the implants were measured and assessed between the groups. RESULTS: The deviations in immediate implant placement were compared between the robotic system and dynamic navigation system groups, showing a mean (±SD) coronal deviation of 0.86 ± 0.36 versus 0.70 ± 0.21 mm (p = .101), a mean apical deviation of 0.77 ± 0.34 versus 0.95 ± 0.38 mm (p = .127), and a mean angular deviation of 1.94 ± 0.66° versus 3.44 ± 1.38° (p < .001). At the healed site, significantly smaller coronal deviation (0.46 ± 0.29 vs. 0.70 ± 0.30 mm, p = .005), apical deviation (0.56 ± 0.30 vs. 0.85 ± 0.25 mm, p < .001), and angular deviation (1.36 ± 0.54 vs. 1.80 ± 0.70 mm, p = .034) were found in the robotic system group than in the dynamic navigation group. CONCLUSIONS: The position in both immediate and conventional implant placement was more precise with the task-autonomous robotic system than with the dynamic navigation system. Its performance in actual clinical applications should be confirmed in further trials.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA