Effect of the number and distribution of fiducial markers on the accuracy of robot-guided implant surgery in edentulous mandibular arches: An in vitro study

• Published in: Journal of dentistry Vol. 134; p. 104529
• Main Authors: Zhao, Yaoyu, Liao, Yilin, Wu, Xinyu, Zhang, Yufeng, Shi, Bin, Yan, Qi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.07.2023
• Subjects: Computer assisted implant surgery; Computer-Aided Design; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods; Dental implant; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Edentulous jaw; Fiducial marker; Fiducial Markers; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; In vitro study; Mouth, Edentulous - diagnostic imaging; Mouth, Edentulous - surgery; Robot-guided surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods; Fiducial marker; Dental implant; Robot-guided surgery; In vitro study; Edentulous jaw; Computer assisted implant surgery
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104529
• ISSN: 0300-5712

•The effect of the number and distribution methods of fiducial markers on robot-guided implant placement accuracy was evaluated.•Inserting six fiducial markers significantly increased the implant position accuracy.•No significant difference was observed between the dispersed and localized distribution methods. Robot-guided implant placement based on the screw marker-assisted registration technique has been applied in dentistry. This study aimed to identify the optimal number and distribution of fiducial markers for robot-guided implant placement in edentulous mandibular phantoms. Four implants were digitally planned and placed in edentulous mandibular phantoms under robotic guidance. Different numbers of fiducial markers (3, 4, 5, or 6) and distribution patterns (dispersed or localized) were used to register the robotic system. Platform, apex, and angular deviations were measured between the planned and actual implant positions using different numbers and distributions of fiducial markers. Inserting six fiducial markers resulted in optimal implant position accuracy at the platform (0.53 ± 0.19 mm) and apex (0.59 ± 0.2 mm) deviations. However, the angular deviation did not differ significantly between different numbers of fiducial markers. Furthermore, the implant position accuracy did not differ significantly between the dispersed and localized distributions of fiducial markers. In robot-guided implant placement for edentulous mandibular arches, the insertion of six fiducial markers significantly increases the implant placement accuracy. The findings of this in vitro study may serve as a reference for clinicians to determine the optimal placement of fiducial markers and to facilitate the clinical application of robot-guided systems for implant placement in edentulous patients. Further clinical studies are necessary to confirm these findings.