All Issue

2022 Vol.26, Issue 1 Preview Page

Original Article

Accuracy of Surgical Robot System Compared to Surgical Guide for Dental Implant Placement: A Pilot Study
Xun Jin1†
,
Ryan Jin-Young Kim2†
,
Ji-Man Park3*
,
Ui-Won Jung4
,
Jae-Kook Cha5
,
June-Sung Shim6
,
Seong-Joo Heo7*
1Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics & Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
2Associate Professor, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
3Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics & Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
4Professor, Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea
5Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea
6Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea
7Professor, Department of Prosthodontics & Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
*Corresponding Author
†These authors contributed equally to this work.
31 March 2022. pp. 27-38
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the tracking accuracy of a robot-guided implant surgery system and compare the spatial accuracy of robot-assisted implant surgery with that of static stentguided implant surgery for implant placement.

Materials and Methods: The tracking accuracy of the robot system was evaluated by measuring the discrepancy between the robot arm and actual programmed position. Dental implants were placed on 3D printed human phantom models using static stent-guided and robot-assisted surgeries. The top, apex, angular, and depth deviations of the placed implant positions were measured relative to the planned position, and the values were compared between the robot and surgical guide groups. The results were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test (α = .05).

Results: The tracking accuracy of the robot system showed a linear deviation of 0.13 ± 0.04 mm and an angular deviation of 0.77 ± 0.02° at the drill tip. Deviations at the top and apex of the implants were 0.61 ± 0.29 mm and 0.50 ± 0.14 mm in the robot group and of 0.49 ± 0.39 mm and 0.72 ± 0.39 mm in the surgical guide group, respectively. Angular and depth deviations were of 2.38 ± 0.62° and 0.17 ± 0.12 mm, respectively, in the robot group, and of 3.16 ± 2.36° and 0.15 ± 0.11 mm, respectively, in the surgical guide group. No statistically significant differences were found between the robotic and surgical guide groups (p > .05).

Conclusion: The accuracy in implant placement using robot-assisted implant surgery was comparable to that of static-guided surgery. Robot-assisted implant surgery and static-guided surgery tended to result in minor deviations at the apex and top of the implants, respectively.

Keywords
Accuracy
Dental implant
Robot-assisted implant surgery
Static-guided implant surgery
References
1
1. van Riet TCT, Chin Jen Sem KTH, Ho JTF, Spijker R, Kober J, de Lange J. Robot technology in dentistry, part two of a systematic review: an overview of initiatives. Dent Mater 2021;37:1227-36. 10.1016/j.dental.2021.06.00234162501
2
2. Wu Y, Wang F, Fan S, Chow JK. Robotics in dental implantology. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2019;31:513-8. 10.1016/j.coms.2019.03.01331103316
3
3. Cheng KJ, Kan TS, Liu YF, Zhu WD, Zhu FD, Wang WB, et al. Accuracy of dental implant surgery with robotic position feedback and registration algorithm: An in-vitro study. Comput Biol Med 2021;129:104153. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.10415333260102
4
4. Cao Z, Qin C, Fan S, Yu D, Wu Y, Qin J, et al. Pilot study of a surgical robot system for zygomatic implant placement. Med Eng Phys 2020;75:72-8. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.07.02031677890
5
5. Bolding SL, Reebye UN. Accuracy of haptic robotic guidance of dental implant surgery for completely edentulous arches. J Prosthet Dent 2021;S0022-3913(21)00056-1. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.04833678441
6
6. Block MS, Emery RW, Lank K, Ryan J. Implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:92-9. 10.11607/jomi.500427643585
7
7. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:121-32. 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9
8
8. D'Haese J, Ackhurst J, Wismeijer D, De Bruyn H, Tahmaseb A. Current state of the art of computerguided implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:121-33. 10.1111/prd.1217528000275
9
9. Scherer U, Stoetzer M, Ruecker M, Gellrich NC, von See C. Template-guided vs. non-guided drilling in site preparation of dental implants. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1339-46. 10.1007/s00784-014-1346-725354488
10
10. Noharet R, Pettersson A, Bourgeois D. Accuracy of implant placement in the posterior maxilla as related to 2 types of surgical guides: a pilot study in the human cadaver. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:526-32. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.01324721507
11
11. Farley NE, Kennedy K, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Split-mouth comparison of the accuracy of computer-generated and conventional surgical guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:563-72. 10.11607/jomi.302523527361
12
12. Abduo J, Lau D. Accuracy of static computer-assisted implant placement in long span edentulous area by novice implant clinicians: A cross-sectional in vitro study comparing fully-guided, pilotguided, and freehand implant placement protocols. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021;23:361-72. 10.1111/cid.1299833817957
13
13. Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108:181-8. 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60145-0
14
14. Xie R. The study on accuracy of the dental implantology robotic system [master]. Xi'an (China): Fourth Military Medical University; 2016.
15
15. Park JM, Heo SJ, Park EJ. Comparative study on clearance between drilling and bushing of various implant guide systems. Implantology 2014;18:194-202. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparative-Study-on-Clearance-between-Drilling-and-Park-Heo/7e10533cdf9b3ba89e0f0cfea0b442ebc6767455
16
16. Oh KC, Park JM, Shim JS, Kim JH, Kim JE, Kim JH. Assessment of metal sleeve-free 3D-printed implant surgical guides. Dent Mater 2019;35:468-76. 10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.00130685109
17
17. Oh KC, Shim JS, Park JM. In vitro comparison between metal sleeve-free and metal sleeveincorporated 3d-printed computer-assisted implant surgical guides. Materials 2021;14:615-24. 10.3390/ma1403061533572781PMC7866124
18
18. Valente F, Schiroli G, Sbrenna A. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:234-42. 19492638
19
19. Jorba-García A, González-Barnadas A, Camps-Font O, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25:2479-94. 10.1007/s00784-021-03833-833635397
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Academy of Oral & Maxillofacial Implantology
  • Publisher(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of implantology and applied sciences
  • Journal Title(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회지
  • Volume : 26
  • No :1
  • Pages :27-38
  • Received Date : 2022-03-17
  • Revised Date : 2022-03-22
  • Accepted Date : 2022-03-23
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.32542/implantology.2022003
Journal Informaiton Journal of implantology and applied sciences Journal of implantology and applied sciences
Online Submission & Review System
  • NRF
  • 임플란트학회 전용 배너
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crossref funder-registry
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close