Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization
Published on: February 23, 2024
Accuracy of a calibration method based on cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanner data registration for
Yi Li1, Jizhe Lyu2, Xunning Cao2
1Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices, Beijing, PR China.
Statement Of Problem:
Robotic systems have shown promise for implant placement because of their accuracy in identifying surgical positions. However, research on the accuracy of patient calibration methods based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scanner (IOS) data registration is lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to develop a calibration method based on the registration of CBCT and IOS data of a robot-assisted system for implant placement, evaluate the accuracy of this calibration method, and explore the accuracy of robot-assisted surgery at different implant positions.
Material And Methods:
Twenty standardized, polyurethane, partially edentulous maxillary typodonts were divided into 2 groups: one group used a calibration method based solely on CBCT data (CBCT group), and the other used a calibration method based on the registration of CBCT and IOS data (IOS group). Four implants were planned for each typodont in the right second premolar, left central incisor, left first premolar, and left second molar positions. The robot performed the osteotomies and implant placement step by step according to the preoperative plan. The operating software program automatically measured the deviation between the planned and actual implant position. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test (α=.05) were used to analyze differences between the test groups.
Results:
The angular deviation and 3-dimensional deviations at implant platform and apex between the 2 calibration methods did not significantly differ among the 4 implant positions (P>.05). The horizontal and depth deviations at the implant platform and apex levels between the 2 calibration methods did not significantly differ among the 4 implant positions (P>.05). In the anterior region (left central incisor), the CBCT group showed higher horizontal deviation at both the implant platform and apex compared with the IOS group (P<.05). Conversely, the IOS group had greater depth deviation at both the implant platform and apex than the CBCT group (P<.05). In the posterior region, with or without distal extension (right second premolar, left first premolar, and left second molar), no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 calibration methods (P>.05).
Conclusions:
The calibration method that was based on the registration of CBCT and IOS data demonstrated high accuracy. No significant differences in the accuracy of the calibration methods for robot-assisted implant placement were found between the CBCT group and IOS group.
