Objective: To compare cusp and U-tube registration methods of dynamic navigation system in dental implant placement. Methods: Twenty resin mandible models and 40 implants were utilized, with implants being placed by a single researcher 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, three-dimensional (3D) entry deviation, and 3D apex deviation were analyzed. Results: The 3D entry deviation, and 3D apex deviation and angular deviation of cusp group and U-tube group were (1.07±0.46) and (0.93±0.54) mm, (1.16±0.55) and (1.03±0.53) mm, 2.06°±0.98°and 1.62°±0.97°. No significant differences (t=0.91, P=0.368; t=0.79, P=0.436; t=1.42, P=0.164) were observed when comparing these two registration methods. Conclusions: Both the cusp and U-tube registration methods are highly accurate when implemented in vitro. The cusp registration technique can also overcome several of the limitations of the U-tube approach, and it is convenient for clinic.
目的： 通过体外实验对比动态导航下种植手术U型管配准与牙尖配准方法的精度差异。 方法： 使用下颌双侧第一磨牙缺失树脂模型（20个）和仿真头颅模型，在动态导航下植入40枚种植体，由同1名研究人员使用随机数表法随机选择U型管配准或牙尖配准方法之一，植入种植体（每组20枚）。通过比较种植体计划植入位置与实际植入位置，评价两种配准方法的精度；选择角度误差、植入点三维误差和根尖点三维误差作为主要测量指标。 结果： U型管配准组和牙尖配准组植入点三维误差分别为（0.93±0.54）和（1.07±0.46）mm，根尖点三维误差分别为（1.03±0.53）和（1.16±0.55）mm，角度误差分别为1.62°±0.97°和2.06°±0.98°，两组相同指标的差异均无统计学意义（t=0.91，P=0.368；t=0.79，P=0.436；t=1.42，P=0.164）。 结论： 动态导航下种植手术中，U型管配准和牙尖配准方法均有较高的精度。牙尖配准方法无需额外的配准设备，便于临床使用。.