Improved positional accuracy of dental implant placement using a haptic and machine-vision-controlled collaborative surgery robot: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To compare the implant accuracy, safety and morbidity between robot-assisted and freehand dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects requiring single-site dental implant placement were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to freehand implant placement and robot-assisted implant placement. Differences in positional accuracy of the implant, surgical morbidity and complications were assessed. The significance of intergroup differences was tested with an intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol (PP) analysis (excluding one patient due to calibration error). RESULTS: Twenty patients (with a median age of 37, 13 female) were included. One subject assigned to the robotic arm was excluded from the PP analysis because of a large calibration error due to the dislodgement of the index. For robot-assisted and freehand implant placement, with the PP analysis, the median (25th-75th percentile) platform global deviation, apex global deviation and angular deviation were 1.23 (0.9-1.4) mm/1.9 (1.2-2.3) mm (p = .03, the Mann-Whitney U-test), 1.40 (1.1-1.6) mm/2.1 (1.7-3.9) mm (p < .01) and 3.0 (0.9-6.0)°/6.7 (2.2-13.9)° (p = .08), respectively. Both methods showed limited damage to the alveolar ridge and had similar peri- and post-operative morbidity and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted implant placement enabled greater positional accuracy of the implant compared to freehand placement in this pilot trial. The robotic system should be further developed to simplify surgical procedures and improve accuracy and be validated in properly sized trials assessing the full spectrum of relevant outcomes.

Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs) are technique sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer alternatives to conventional impression making. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy and passive fit of IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and open tray impression (OI) for CIFDPs with different implant distributions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three definitive casts with 4 parallel implants (4-PARA), 4 inclined implants (4-INCL), and 6 parallel implants (6-PARA) were fabricated. Three recording techniques were tested: IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and OI. The best and the worst scans were selected to fabricate 18 milled aluminum alloy frameworks. The trueness and precision of distance deviation (∆td and ∆pd), angular deviation (∆tθand ∆pθ), root mean square errors (∆tRMS for ∆pRMS), and passive fit score of frameworks were recorded. Two-way ANOVA was applied. RESULTS: SPG showed the best trueness and precision (95%CI of ∆td/∆tθ/∆tRMS, 31 to 39 µm, 0.22 to 0.28 degrees, 20 to 23 µm; 95%CI of ∆pd/∆pθ/∆pRMS, 9 to 11 µm, 0.06 to 0.08 degrees, 8 to 10 µm), followed by OI (61 to 83 µm, 0.33 to 0.48 degrees, 28 to 48 µm; 66 to 81 µm, 0.29 to 0.38 degrees, 32 to 41 µm) and IOS (143 to 193 µm, 0.37 to 0.50 degrees, 81 to 96 µm; 89 to 111 µm, 0.27 to 0.31 degrees, 51 to 62 µm). Tilted implants were associated with increased distance deviation. Increased implant number was associated with improved recording precision. The passive fit of frameworks was negatively correlated with the RMS error, and the correlation coefficient was -0.65 (P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: SPG had the best accuracy. Implant distributions affected implant precision. The RMS error can be used to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks.

Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scan system (IOS) with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) compared with open tray implant impression (OI) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients needing CIFDP were enrolled in this study. OI, reference standard, IOS with prefabricated aids, and SPG were performed for each patient. Distance and angle deviations between all pairs of abutment analogs, root mean square (RMS) errors between the aligned test and reference model, and chairside time were measured. The effect of inter-abutment distance, jaw (maxilla or mandible), number of implants, and arch length on deviations was analyzed. The mixed effect model was applied to analyze deviations and RMS errors. RESULTS: Fifteen consecutive individuals (6 females and 9 males, 47-77 years old) with 22 arches (9 upper and 13 lower jaws) and 115 implants were included. There was no significant difference in distance deviation comparing SPG and IOS with OI (p > .05). IOS showed a significantly greater angle deviation and RMS errors than SPG (median 0.40° vs. 0.31°, 69 µm vs. 45 µm, p < .01). The inter-abutment distance was negatively correlated with the accuracy of SPG and IOS (p < .05). The chairside time for IOS, SPG, and OI was 10.49 ± 3.50, 14.71 ± 2.86, and 20.20 ± 3.01 min, respectively (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of SPG and IOS with prefabricated aids was comparable. IOS was the most efficient workflow.

Clinical, radiographic, and esthetic evaluation of immediate implant placement with buccal bone dehiscence in the anterior maxilla: A 1-year prospective case series.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement with buccal bone dehiscence in the anterior maxilla. METHODS: In this case series, implants were inserted immediately after tooth extraction in sockets with buccal bone dehiscence. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) with a papilla preservation flap and simultaneous connective tissue grafting (CTG) was used. The following outcome variables were measured: mid-facial mucosal recession, probing depth, bleeding on probing, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), marginal bone loss, and thickness of buccal bone plate (TBP). RESULTS: 12 patients were recruited. Stable mid-facial mucosal level (-0.03 ± 0.17 mm) and excellent soft-tissue esthetic outcomes (PES, 9.17 ± 0.72) were achieved at 1 year. The TBP at platform level was 2.01 ± 0.31 mm at 1-year follow up with a resorption rate of 28.90% ± 15.14%. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement using GBR performed with a papilla preservation approach and simultaneous CTG is a feasible treatment procedure in compromised extraction sockets in the anterior region. Favorable esthetic outcomes and buccal bone thickness were obtained. Further studies were needed to evaluate the long-term tissue alteration.