目的 比较自主研制的通用型牙种植导板、3D打印数字化导板和自由手在牙模后牙区模拟种植的精度。 方法 选择10位初级种植医生分别以通用型自研导板、数字化导板和自由手3种方式在下颌模型（35、36、37及46牙缺失）的35、37和46牙位植入3枚种植体，操作2次取平均值。利用锥形束CT评价种植体的实际位置与术前规划位置之间的顶端距离差、根尖距离差、深度差及角度差。 结果 自研导板组3个种植位点的顶端距离差、根尖距离差和其余两组无差异（P>0.05），深度差小于数字化导板组（P<0.05），角度差小于自由手组（P<0.05）。自研导板组37位点的所有偏差均和35位点无差异（P>0.05），而数字化导板组37位点的深度差和角度差大于35位点（P<0.05）。 结论 自研的通用型牙种植导板的精度能满足临床后牙区种植的要求。

Objective This study aims to compare the accuracy of self-developed universal implant guide (SDG), 3D printed digital guide (DG), and free hand (FH) simulated implantation in the posterior tooth area of dental models. Methods Ten junior dentists were selected to place three implants in the 35, 37, and 46 tooth sites of the mandibular models (35, 36, 37, and 46 missing teeth) by using SDG, DG, and FH, and the process was repeated again to take the average value. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to evaluate the global coronal deviation, global apical deviation, depth deviation, and angular deviation between the actual position and preoperative planned position. Results The coronal deviation and apical deviation of the three implant sites in the SDG group were not significantly different from those in the two other groups (P>0.05). The depth deviation and angular deviation in the SDG group were smaller than those in the DG group (P<0.05) and FH group (P<0.05), respectively. All deviations at site 37 in the SDG group were not different from those at site 35 (P>0.05), while the depth and angular deviation at site 37 in the DG group were higher than those at site 35 (P<0.05). Conclusion The precision of the self-developed universal dental implant guide can meet the requirements of clinical posterior implantation.