Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 22;23(5):2450.
doi: 10.3390/s23052450.

Development of a Real-Time 6-DOF Motion-Tracking System for Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery

Minki Sin  1 , Jang Ho Cho  1 , Hyukjin Lee  1 , Kiyoung Kim  1 , Hyun Soo Woo  1 , Ji-Man Park  2
Affiliations

Development of a Real-Time 6-DOF Motion-Tracking System for Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery

Minki Sin et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate a motion-tracking system for robotic computer-assisted implant surgery. Failure of the accurate implant positioning may result in significant problems, thus an accurate real-time motion-tracking system is crucial for avoiding these issues in computer-assisted implant surgery. Essential features of the motion-tracking system are analyzed and classified into four categories: workspace, sampling rate, accuracy, and back-drivability. Based on this analysis, requirements for each category have been derived to ensure that the motion-tracking system meets the desired performance criteria. A novel 6-DOF motion-tracking system is proposed which demonstrates high accuracy and back-drivability, making it suitable for use in computer-assisted implant surgery. The results of the experiments confirm the effectiveness of the proposed system in achieving the essential features required for a motion-tracking system in robotic computer-assisted implant surgery.

Keywords: Agile Eye; back-drivability; dental surgery; motion-tracking system; robotic computer-assisted implant surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Head range of motion: (a) head–neck movement equivalent model; (b) cervical flexion/extension; (c) left/right lateralization; (d) left/right rotation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The dental splint to connect the motion tracker and the patient.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Simulated target workspace according to target head ROM: (a) schematic diagram of end-effector; (b) perspective view; (c) side view; (d) top view.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Configuration of the translational motion-tracking structure.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The rotational angle-tracking structure based on serial link mechanism.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The rotational angle-tracking structure based on the Agile Eye mechanism: (a) linkage configuration of the one leg of the Agile Eye mechanism; (b) neutral posture; (c) pitch motion of the Agile Eye; (d) yaw motion of the Agile Eye; (e) roll motion of the Agile Eye.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Gravity compensation mechanism for the motion tracker: (a) gravity compensation using spring–balancer mechanism; (b) gravity compensation using counterweight mechanism.
Figure 8
Figure 8
The frame assignments for the proposed link structure: (a) front view; (b) top view.
Figure 9
Figure 9
The frame assignments for the Agile Eye.
Figure 10
Figure 10
The lightweight motion-tracking arm for dental surgery.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Reachable workspace computed via numerical simulation: (a) perpendicular view of the reachable workspace by the translational motion structure; (b) top view of the reachable workspace by the translational motion structure; (c) perpendicular view of the reachable workspace by the entire motion-tracking system; (d) top view of the reachable workspace by the entire motion-tracking system.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Experimental setup to evaluate the positional accuracy. A robot and real-time control platform were used to generate repetitive movement for the developed motion tracking system, and a laser tracker and a Spherical Mounted Retroreflector were used to measure position reference data.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Experimental results on positional accuracy: (a) measured end-effector position from the developed motion-tracking system; (b) sampled points at the origin (red) and the target (blue).
Figure 14
Figure 14
Experimental results on positional accuracy.
Figure 15
Figure 15
Experimental setup to evaluate back-drivability.
Figure 16
Figure 16
Experimental results for back-drivability: (a) trajectories of arbitrary motions generated by the operator; (b) top view of the trajectories; (c) force measured according to arbitrary human motions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pyo S.W., Lim Y.J., Koo K.T., Lee J. Methods Used to Assess the 3D Accuracy of Dental Implant Positions in Computer-Guided Implant Placement: A Review. J. Clin. Med. 2019;8:54. doi: 10.3390/jcm8010054. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tahmaseb A., Wismeijer D., Coucke W., Derksen W. Computer Technology Applications in Surgical Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014;29:25–42. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g1.2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kühl S., Zürcher S., Mahid T., Müller-Gerbl M., Filippi A., Cattin P. Accuracy of full guided vs. half-guided implant surgery. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013;24:763–769. - PubMed
    1. Santis D.D., Malchiodi L., Cucchi A., Cybulski A., Verlato G., Gelpi F., Nocini P.F. The Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery Performed Using Fully Guided Templates versus Pilot-Drill Guided Templates. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019;2019:9023548. doi: 10.1155/2019/9023548. - DOI
    1. Park J.M., Kim J., Shim J.S. Review of Computer-assisted Implant Surgeries: Navigation Surgery System vs. Computer-guided Implant Template vs. Robot. Korean Acad. Oral Maxillofac. Implantol. 2018;22:50–58. doi: 10.32542/implantology.20180005. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources