4.1 Article

The precision of computer-generated surgical splints

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 61, 期 7, 页码 814-817

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0278-2391(03)00240-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the precision of stereolithographic surgical splints generated by the authors' computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technique by comparing them with the conventional acrylic splints. Materials and Methods: Seven volunteers were used. A pair of surgical splints, stereolithographic and conventional acrylic splints, was fabricated for each subject. A novel method was developed to quantify the airspace between the teeth and the splint. Conventional acrylic surgical splints served as a control group. The airspaces were recorded by impression materials and sliced cross-sectionally. Corresponding areas of the cross-sectional airspaces between stereolithographic and acrylic splints were measured and compared. Pearson's correlation coefficient and linear regression tests were performed. Results: Seven pairs of surgical splints were created. The areas of 98 pairs of cross-sectional airspaces were measured; The average difference between the conventional and the STL splints was 0.24 +/- 0.23 mm(2). The correlation coefficient (r) of the airspace areas between the stereolithographic and conventional acrylic splints was 1.00, and the regression coefficient (beta) was 1.03 (P < .01). Conclusions: The results indicated that the stereolithographic splints, generated by the authors' CAD/CAM technique, had a high degree of accuracy. The fit of the STL splints was the same as the conventional surgical splints. In the future, traditional plaster dental model surgery will be replaced by computer-assisted surgical planning. The surgical splints will be made in the computer and the treatment plan will be directly transferred to the patient. (C) 2003 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

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

4.1
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