Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study

Purpose: To compare the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods in the use of dental implant placement, and to assess the influence of the location of missing teeth on these registrations. Methods: 32 resin mandible models and 64 implants were utilized, with implants being pla...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tai Wei, Feifei Ma, Feng Sun, Yu Ma
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2023-01-01
Series:Journal of Personalized Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/13/1/139
_version_ 1797440096969949184
author Tai Wei
Feifei Ma
Feng Sun
Yu Ma
author_facet Tai Wei
Feifei Ma
Feng Sun
Yu Ma
author_sort Tai Wei
collection DOAJ
description Purpose: To compare the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods in the use of dental implant placement, and to assess the influence of the location of missing teeth on these registrations. Methods: 32 resin mandible models and 64 implants were utilized, with implants being placed using one of the two registration methods selected at random. Accuracy was measured through the superimposition of the final and planned implant positions. Angular deviation, 3D entry deviation, and 3D apex deviation were analyzed. Results: The overall mean 3D deviation was 1.089 ± 0.515 mm at the entry point and 1.174 ± 0.531 mm at the apex point, and mean angular deviation was 1.970 ± 1.042 degrees. No significant difference (<i>p</i> > 0.05) was observed when comparing these two registration methods. However, the U-tube method showed significant difference when assessing the location of missing teeth (without distal-extension absence and distal-extension absence), whereas cusp registration was unaffected. Conclusions: Both the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods are accurate when implemented in vitro. Besides, the cusp registration technique can also overcome several of the limitations of the U-tube approach and the accuracy of it was not influenced by the location of the missing teeth, highlighting it as a method worthy of further clinical research.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T12:02:12Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ec56d3af5db8429789edd79b4ff36122
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2075-4426
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T12:02:12Z
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Journal of Personalized Medicine
spelling doaj.art-ec56d3af5db8429789edd79b4ff361222023-11-30T23:02:40ZengMDPI AGJournal of Personalized Medicine2075-44262023-01-0113113910.3390/jpm13010139Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro StudyTai Wei0Feifei Ma1Feng Sun2Yu Ma3First Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100034, ChinaFirst Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100034, ChinaFirst Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100034, ChinaFirst Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100034, ChinaPurpose: To compare the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods in the use of dental implant placement, and to assess the influence of the location of missing teeth on these registrations. Methods: 32 resin mandible models and 64 implants were utilized, with implants being placed using one of the two registration methods selected at random. Accuracy was measured through the superimposition of the final and planned implant positions. Angular deviation, 3D entry deviation, and 3D apex deviation were analyzed. Results: The overall mean 3D deviation was 1.089 ± 0.515 mm at the entry point and 1.174 ± 0.531 mm at the apex point, and mean angular deviation was 1.970 ± 1.042 degrees. No significant difference (<i>p</i> > 0.05) was observed when comparing these two registration methods. However, the U-tube method showed significant difference when assessing the location of missing teeth (without distal-extension absence and distal-extension absence), whereas cusp registration was unaffected. Conclusions: Both the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods are accurate when implemented in vitro. Besides, the cusp registration technique can also overcome several of the limitations of the U-tube approach and the accuracy of it was not influenced by the location of the missing teeth, highlighting it as a method worthy of further clinical research.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/13/1/139dynamic navigation systemU-tube registrationcusp registrationdental implant placement
spellingShingle Tai Wei
Feifei Ma
Feng Sun
Yu Ma
Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study
Journal of Personalized Medicine
dynamic navigation system
U-tube registration
cusp registration
dental implant placement
title Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study
title_full Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study
title_fullStr Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study
title_short Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study
title_sort assessment of the accuracy of two different dynamic navigation system registration methods for dental implant placement in the posterior area an in vitro study
topic dynamic navigation system
U-tube registration
cusp registration
dental implant placement
url https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/13/1/139
work_keys_str_mv AT taiwei assessmentoftheaccuracyoftwodifferentdynamicnavigationsystemregistrationmethodsfordentalimplantplacementintheposteriorareaaninvitrostudy
AT feifeima assessmentoftheaccuracyoftwodifferentdynamicnavigationsystemregistrationmethodsfordentalimplantplacementintheposteriorareaaninvitrostudy
AT fengsun assessmentoftheaccuracyoftwodifferentdynamicnavigationsystemregistrationmethodsfordentalimplantplacementintheposteriorareaaninvitrostudy
AT yuma assessmentoftheaccuracyoftwodifferentdynamicnavigationsystemregistrationmethodsfordentalimplantplacementintheposteriorareaaninvitrostudy