Use of three points to determine the accuracy of guided implantation


Autoři: Ye Liang aff001;  ShanShan Yuan aff002;  JingJing Huan aff001;  HuiXin Wang aff001;  YiYi Zhang aff001;  ChangYun Fang aff001;  Jia-Da Li aff003
Působiště autorů: Department of Stomatology, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China aff001;  Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China aff002;  School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225823

Souhrn

Aim

'This study aims to establish an open-source algorithm using Python to analyze the accuracy of guided implantation, which simplifies interstudy comparisons.

Methods

Given ≥3 landmark pairs, this Tri-Point (TriP) method can register images. With ≥4 landmark pairs, TriP can calculate system errors for image registration. We selected 8 indicators from the literature. Considering development errors in new bone on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), we added the indicators of apical rectified deviation (ARD) and coronal rectified deviation (CRD), providing accurate references but neglecting depth deviations. Our program can calculate and output these indicators. To evaluate the TriP method’s feasibility, an implantation group assisted by a Visual Direction-INdicating Guide (VDING) was analyzed. Accuracy was measured with the traditional and proposed TriP methods. Factors affecting the system error of the method were then analyzed.

Results

Comparisons with paired-sample t-tests showed that our TriP method was similar to the traditional method in evaluating implantation accuracy, with no significant difference (P>0.05). The average system error was 0.30±0.10 mm when the TriP method evaluated the VDING template. The results showed that increasing the provided landmarks from 4 to 5 pairs decreased the between-group differences significantly (P<0.05). With ≥6 pairs of landmarks, the system error tended to be stable, and the groups showed no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). Large distances between landmarks are helpful in reducing system error, as demonstrated with a geometric method.

Conclusions

This study established an open-source algorithm to analyze the accuracy of guided implantation with system errors reported.

Klíčová slova:

Computed axial tomography – Computer software – Imaging techniques – Medical devices and equipment – Medical implants – Open source software – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Teeth


Zdroje

1. Behneke A, Burwinkel M, Behneke N. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23: 416–423. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02337.x 22092586

2. Younes F, Cosyn J, De Bruyckere T, Cleymaet R, Bouckaert E, Eghbali A. A randomized controlled study on the accuracy of free-handed, pilot-drill guided and fully guided implant surgery in partially edentulous patients. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45: 721–732. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12897 29608793

3. Liang Y, Jiang CH, Wu LM, Wang WJ, Liu YG, Jian XC. Application of Combined Osteotomy and Reconstruction Pre-Bent Plate Position (CORPPP) Technology to Assist in the Precise Reconstruction of Segmental Mandibular Defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75:2026.e1–2026.e10.

4. Naziri E, Schramm A, Wilde F. Accuracy of computer-assisted implant placement with insertion templates. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW. 2016;5: Doc15. doi: 10.3205/iprs000094 27274440

5. Zhou W, Liu Z, Song L, Kuo CL, Shafer DM. Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of guided implant surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018;18: 28–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.07.007 29478680

6. Kuhl S, Zurcher S, Mahid T, Muller-Gerbl M, Filippi A, Cattin P. Accuracy of full guided vs. half-guided implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24: 763–769. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02484.x 22551385

7. Lee JH, Park JM, Kim SM, Kim MJ, Lee JH, Kim MJ. An assessment of template-guided implant surgery in terms of accuracy and related factors. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013;5: 440–447. doi: 10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.440 24353883

8. Liang Y, Yuan SS, Huan JJ, Zhang YY, Fang CY, Li JD. In Vitro Experimental Study of the Effect of Adjusting the Guide Sleeve Height and Using a Visual Direction-Indicating Guide on Implantation Accuracy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:2259–2268. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2019.05.017 31260674

9. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89: 780–785. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 17403800

10. Sun L, Li HB, Chu BF. Three-dimensional accuracy of plaster casts obtained using three impression materials. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2010;30: 257–259. 20159694

11. Champleboux G, Fortin T, Buatois H, Coudert JL, Blanchet E. A fast, accurate and easy method to position oral implant using computed tomography. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI’98. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1998. pp. 269–276.

12. 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: 234–242. 19492638

13. Van Steenberghe D, Malevez C, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Serhal CB, Dhoore E, Schutyser F, et al. Accuracy of drilling guides for transfer from three-dimensional CT-based planning to placement of zygoma implants in human cadavers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14: 131–136. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140118.x 12562376


Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12