4.7 Article

Performance of novice versus experienced surgeons for dental implant placement with freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29633-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This in vitro study compared the accuracy and self-efficacy of novice and experienced dental surgeons using different approaches for implant placement. The findings showed that dynamic navigation (DN) significantly improved the accuracy of implant positioning. Novice practitioners scored higher with guided approaches, while experienced practitioners achieved higher scores with partial guidance and freehand techniques.
Lack of evidence exists related to the investigation of the accuracy and efficacy of novice versus experienced practitioners for dental implant placement. Hence, the following in vitro study was conducted to assess the accuracy of implant positioning and self-efficacy of novice compared to experienced surgeons for placing implant using freehand (FH), pilot drill-based partial guidance (PPG) and dynamic navigation (DN) approaches. The findings revealed that DN significantly improved the angular accuracy of implant placement compared with FH (P < 0.001) and PPG approaches (P < 0.001). The time required with DN was significantly longer than FH and PPG (P < 0.001), however, it was similar for both novice and experienced practitioners. The surgeon's self-confidence questionnaire suggested that novice practitioners scored higher with both guided approaches, whereas experienced practitioners achieved higher scoring with PPG and FH compared to DN. In conclusion, implant placement executed under the guidance of DN showed high accuracy irrespective of the practitioner's experience. The application of DN could be regarded as a beneficial tool for novices who offered high confidence of using the navigation system with the same level of accuracy and surgical time as that of experienced practitioners.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据