论文部分内容阅读
目的:评估静态导板的套筒高度及其引导植入的种植体长度对导板精度的影响。方法:纳入28个双侧下颌单牙缺失成品模型，通过静态数字化导板全程引导植入55枚种植体（Straumann Bone Level 4.1 mm×10 mm），分为自由手组及10个不同套筒高度组（分别为1、2、3、4、5、6、7、8、9、10 mm组），每组5枚种植体，研究不同套筒高度对导板精度的影响。纳入8个研究模型，使用5 mm高度套筒导板植入不同长度种植体（Straumann Bone Level 直径4.1 mm，高度分别为8、10和14 mm），每组5枚，研究不同种植体长度对导板精度的影响。纳入2018年10月至2019年6月于天津市口腔医院口腔种植科就诊的下颌单牙缺失患者18例，男性10例，女性8例，年龄（33.7±7.9）岁（18~46岁），共植入种植体18枚，并分为3组（自由手组、套筒高度3 mm组及5 mm组），每组6枚。使用数字化软件比较植入前和植入后的种植体位置，测量三维误差和角度偏差。采用非参数Kruskal-Wallis检验或单因素方差分析进行统计学分析。结果:1~10 mm套筒高度各组及自由手组种植体的植入深度偏差差异无统计学意义（n P>0.05）；自由手组的种植体颈部偏差［（1.04±0.13） mm］显著高于其他组（n P<0.05）；自由手组、1 mm组、2 mm组的种植体尖端偏差［分别为（1.32±0.43）、（0.83±0.10）和（0.78±0.11） mm］均显著高于10 mm组［（0.31±0.14） mm］（n P<0.05）；自由手组、1 mm组的角度偏差（分别为3.99°±0.85°和2.59°±0.69°）均显著高于10 mm组（0.61°±0.03°）（n P<0.05）。5 mm高度套筒导板引导植入的长14 mm组种植体的尖端偏差［（0.83±0.22） mm］显著高于8 mm及10 mm组［分别为（0.44±0.07）和（0.49±0.06） mm］（n P0.05），但均显著小于自由手组（n P<0.05）。n 结论:套筒高度可影响全程导航种植术中种植体植入精度；使用套筒高度3 mm导板的种植体偏差与套筒高5 mm导板差异无统计学意义。“,”Objective:To evaluate the influence of the sleeve lengths and implant lengths on accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).Methods:Twenty-eight models of bilateral mandibular single tooth loss were included. Fifty-five implants were placed under the guidance of sCAIS (Straumann Bone Level 4.1 mm×10 mm). According to the height of metal sleeve of static guide plate, 55 implants were divided into 11 groups (free hand group, 1 mm group, 2 mm group, 3 mm group, 4 mm group, 5 mm group, 6 mm group, 7 mm group, 8 mm group, 9 mm group, 10 mm group), with 5 implants in each group. Eight research models were included. Group with 5 mm sleeve guides were used to place implants of different length, (Straumann Bone Level width 4.1 mm, height was 8 mm, 10 mm and 14 mm), 5 implants in each group. Eighteen patients with mandibular single tooth loss were included in the Department of Oral Implantology, Tianjin Stomatological Hospital from October 2018 to June 2019. There were 10 males and 8 females, 18-46(33.7±7.9) years old. A total of 18 implants were implanted and divided into 3 groups (free hand group, 3 mm group and 5 mm group) with 6 implants in each group. Digital software was used to compare the implant positions before and after implantation. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test or one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the results.Results:There was no significant difference in implant vertical deviation between different sleeve height groups (1-10 mm) and free hand group, but the neck deviation in free hand group[(1.04±0.13) mm] was significantly higher than that in different sleeve height groups (1-10 mm) (n P<0.05). The tip deviations of free hand group, 1 mm group and 2 mm group [(1.32±0.43), (0.83±0.10) and (0.78±0.11) mm, respectively] was significantly higher than that of 10 mm group [(0.31±0.14) mm](n P<0.05). The angle deviation of free hand group and 1 mm group (3.99°±0.85° and 2.59°±0.69°), respectively] was significantly higher than that of 10 mm group (0.61°±0.03°) (n P0.05), but deviations were significantly lower than those in free hand group (n P<0.05).n Conclusions:The length of the sleeves has significant influence on the accuracy of the surgical guide. There was no significant difference in accuracy of the implant guide with 3 mm or 5 mm metal sleeves. The vitro study has some limitations and needs further systematic research.