Comparison of the accuracy of implant position for two‐implants supported fixed dental prosthesis using static and dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Freehand vs. computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis-part 1: accuracy of planned and placed implant position

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to investigate and compare the accuracy of free-hand and computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS) approaches in dental implant placement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The PICO question as follows: In patients receiving dental implants, does computer-aided implant surgery superior in accuracy compared to non-computer-aided implant surgery? The primary outcome was angular deviation between the planned and placed position of the implant. An electronic search was made to identify all relevant studies reporting the accuracy of CAIS approaches and freehand for dental implant placement. The data were extracted in the descriptive description, and a meta-analysis of single means was performed to estimate the deviations for each variable using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Out of 1609 initial articles, 55 were selected for data extraction. The mean value of angular, entry, and apex deviations were 7.46°, 1.56 mm, and 2.22 mm for freehand, 5.94°, 1.13 mm, and 1.43 mm for pilot drill-sCAIS, 2.57°, 0.72 mm, 0.88 mm for fully guided-sCAIS (fg-sCAIS), and 3.67°, 1.01 mm, and 1.36 for dynamic CAIS (dCAIS), respectively. Significant differences were found between the freehand and CAIS approaches (p < 0.04). Fg-sCAIS was significantly more accurate than dCAIS systems at the entry (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the freehand approach, both sCAIS and dCAIS improve implant placement accuracy, with angular deviations ranging from 2° to 6°. Detailed planning is crucial for CAIS, particularly for fg-sCAIS, which demonstrated the highest accuracy than others. As apex deviations of 1 to 2 mm have been observed in CAIS approaches, a 2-mm safety margin should be implemented to minimize surgical risks.

Evaluation of the Accuracy, Surgical Time, and Learning Curve of Freehand, Static, and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in an In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVES

This experimental study compared the accuracy of implant insertion using the free-hand (FH) technique, static computer-aided surgery (S-CAIS), or dynamic computer-assisted surgery (D-CAIS) and to evaluate the correlation of learning curves between surgeons' experience and surgical time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six models were randomly assigned to three groups (FH, n = 12; S-CAIS, n = 12; D-CAIS, n = 12). Each model was planned to receive four implants in the maxillary anterior and posterior regions. Twelve participants, six experienced surgeons, and six dental students were included in this study. The primary outcome was the deviation between the planned and final implant placement from each group. Secondary outcomes were each technique's learning curve regarding surgical time.

RESULTS

The average deviation at implant platform, apex and gradual deviation with FH technique were 1.31 ± 0.88 mm, 1.75 ± 0.9 mm and 6.67° ± 3.70°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in S-CAIS were 0.67 ± 0.32 mm, 1.00 ± 0.39 and 2.66° ± 1.77°, respectively. The average deviation of implant platform, apex and angular in D-CAIS were 1.14 ± 0.70 mm, 1.23 ± 0.58 and 3.20° ± 2.16°, respectively. Significant discrepancies at the implant platform, implant apex, and angular deviation were found between all surgical methods (p < 0.016). Learning curves were evident after multiple implant insertions using both freehand and S-CAIS.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that computer-assisted implant insertion leads to a more precise implant alignment than implants inserted freehand in an experimental set-up.

Application of a semi-active robotic system for implant placement in atrophic posterior maxilla: A retrospective case series

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of a semi-active robotic system for implant placement in atrophic posterior maxilla.

METHODS

Patients underwent robot-assisted implant placement in atrophic posterior maxilla were identified and included. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed before surgery. The virtual implant position and drilling sequences were planned in the robotic planning system. Patients with positioning marker took an intraoral scan. The preoperative CBCT and the intraoral scan were superimposed in the robotic software. After registration, the implant bed was prepared utilizing the robotic arm with 1 mm safety margin below the maxillary sinus floor. The transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) was performed by the dentist, followed by the implant placement with the robotic arm. A postoperative CBCT was taken and superimposed with the preoperative one to calculate the accuracy of implant placement. Complications and adverse events were recorded. Deviations between the implant platform and apex levels were analyzed using the paired t-test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven implants of 20 patients were included. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were reported. The global, lateral and vertical platform deviations were 0.73 ± 0.27 mm, 0.35 ± 0.23 mm and 0.35 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. The global, lateral and vertical apex deviations were 0.77 ± 0.23 mm, 0.41 ± 0.20 mm and 0.34 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. There were significant differences between the global, lateral and vertical deviations between the implant platform and apex levels (P < 0.05, respectively). The angular deviation was 1.58 ± 0.76°.

CONCLUSIONS

High accuracy and safety for implant placement in atrophic posterior maxilla could be achieved using a semi-active robotic system, with the TSFE procedure performed by the dentist.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides significant evidence to support the application of semi-active robotic systems for implant placement in atrophic posterior maxilla.

Implant placement with an autonomous dental implant robot: A clinical report

Ideal implant placement is the basis for long-term implant survival and satisfactory restoration outcomes. Static and dynamic computer-assisted guidance have been used to improve the accuracy of implant placement, but both have shortcomings that robots can overcome. This clinical report describes the use of an autonomous implant robot to complete the placement of 2 adjacent implants with immediate postoperative restoration.

Accuracy and operation procedure of robotic computer-aided implant surgery

This study assessed the accuracy of robotic computer-aided implant surgery (rCAIS) in partially edentulous patients using a standard operation procedure. Patients who underwent implant placement surgeries using the robotic system under a standard operation procedure were recruited. Deviations of dental implants were calculated after superimposition of the preoperative and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. The possible effects of the implant regions on these deviations were investigated. A total of 30 participants were enrolled in the study and 44 implants were inserted. The median (25th-75th percentile) global coronal deviation, global apical deviation, and angular deviation were 0.62 mm (0.46-1.00), 0.62 mm (0.49-1.01) and 1.16 (0.69-1.69) °, respectively. The jaw was a factor in the lateral coronal, vertical coronal, and vertical apical deviations (P < 0.05). Both the lateral coronal and apical deviations were greater for immediate implant placements than for delayed implant placements (P < 0.05). The implant dimensions significantly affected the apical deviation (P < 0.05). These results indicate that rCAIS based on a standard operation procedure is safe and accurate in partially edentulous patients. However, there remains a need to optimize robotic systems to simplify the workflow and improve their ability to recognize and respond to complex bone structures. Further clinical studies should also focus on comparing the long-term implant success rate and related complications of rCAIS with traditional approaches.

The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement With Different Methods of Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

OBJECTIVE

Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) has been introduced as a tool to aid in reaching a more accurate implant position. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare all the available CAIS techniques and obtain collective evidence on the method that offers the highest accuracy compared to freehand implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Database search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library in addition to extensive search in the gray literature and related systematic reviews, aiming to find clinical studies that compared any CAIS technique with another, or with freehand implant placement. The outcomes evaluated were angle, platform, and apex deviation. The search process ended on March 18, 2024.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. All CAIS techniques (static with partial or full guidance, dynamic with partial or full guidance, the combination of static and dynamic CAIS) showed significantly less deviation than freehand implant placement, except for the static CAIS with guidance for the pilot drill only. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS ranked best among all other methods. Based on the GRADE system, the certainty of evidence in the outcomes of the meta-analysis was judged as low or moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrates that computer-assisted implant surgery provides significantly higher accuracy in implant placement, with the combination of static and dynamic CAIS being the most precise. Nevertheless, future studies are needed, considering the different types, locations, and extents of edentulism in the analyzed investigations, as well as the necessity of obtaining stronger evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERIO number: CRD42023482030.

Efficacy of digital templates in edentulous implant placement: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of a digital template on the three-dimensional accuracy of edentulous implantation through a retrospective study to provide more clinical evidence for the use of digital templates in edentulous patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study evaluates the efficacy of a digital surgical template in edentulous jaws, comparing preoperative plans with postoperative outcomes across four metrics: platform, apex, depth, and angular deviations. Utilizing a patient with an edentulous maxilla as a case study, this research employs CBCT for preoperative and postoperative assessments, with deviations analyzed via 3-Shape software. Comparing these deviations with average deviations in lierature.

RESULTS

The average platform deviations at positions 12, 14, 16, 22, 24, 26 were 0.98 ± 0.03 mm, 1.43 ± 0.02 mm, 1.27 ± 0.04 mm, 1.35 ± 0.03 mm, 1.34 ± 0.02 mm, and 1.42 ± 0.03 mm, respectively. The average apex deviations were 1.28 ± 0.02 mm, 1.39 ± 0.03 mm, 1.47 ± 0.04 mm, 1.26 ± 0.04 mm, 1.40 ± 0.04 mm, and 1.48 ± 0.03 mm, respectively, the average angular deviations were 3.50°± 0.08°, 2.87°± 0.07°, 3.49°± 0.06°, 3.36°± 0.10°, 3.41°± 0.13°, and 3.69°± 0.11°, and average depth deviations were 0.29 ± 0.03 mm, 0.26 ± 0.05 mm, 0.59 ± 0.05 mm, 0.28 ± 0.04 mm, 0.47 ± 0.02 mm, 0.53 ± 0.03 mm. Compared with a total mean deviation of 1.2 mm (1.04 mm to 1.44 mm) of platform deviation, 1.4 mm (1.28 mm to 1.58 mm) of apex deviation, angular deviation of 3.5°(3.0° to 3.96°) and depth deviation of 0.2 mm (-0.25 mm to 0.57 mm) reported in literature. While all measured deviations fell within clinically acceptable limits, certain parameters exceeded the benchmarks, suggesting areas for improvement in digital surgical planning and execution.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that while all measured deviations fell within clinically acceptable limits, certain parameters exceeded the benchmarks, suggesting areas for improvement in digital surgical planning and execution. Based on these data, the potential of digital guide plates to fulfill precision requirements in edentulous jaw implantation can be proved, contributing valuable insights into the optimization of implant surgery protocols.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Now, the digital template is accepted by many doctors. However, clinical research has not thoroughly verified whether the new digital technology is more accurate than traditional technology. So, this study aims to explore the effect of a whole-process digital template on edentulous implantation and provide more clinical evidence.

Dynamic navigation vs. static navigation in implant placement: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The precision of implant surgery is pivotal to the success of implant outcomes. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy of static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS) and dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (dCAIS) on the accuracy of implant placement.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, clinical trial registries, Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Weipu databases for studies comparing sCAIS and dCAIS up to April 16, 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for the quality assessment of included cohort studies (CSs), and Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2 (RoB2) were utilized to evaluate the risk of bias of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 software developed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies, comprising 4 RCTs and 5 CSs, were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that dCAIS significantly reduced implant apical deviation (MD=-0.12, 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.02, P = 0.02) and implant depth deviation (MD=-0.20, 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.06, P = 0.004) compared to sCAIS. However, no significant differences were observed in implant platform deviation (MD=-0.01, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.06, P = 0.74) and implant angular deviation (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.78 to 0.18, P = 0.22) between the two techniques. Egger's test results indicated no evidence of publication bias across the analyzed outcomes (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that dCAIS offers superior implant accuracy over sCAIS.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

dCAIS may be preferred for use in implant placement. Further high-quality clinical research is necessary to comprehensively evaluate the roles of dCAIS and sCAIS in various types of edentulous conditions, particularly within the context of uniform navigation systems.

Comparison of precision of implant placement between two different guided systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery: A simulation-based experimental study

Background/purpose

Many designs of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) are available for clinician to achieve proper implant position. However, there were not any studies that approached the design alone to evaluate whether sleeve-in-sleeve or sleeve-on-drill design provided most accuracy implant position. The purpose of this study was to investigate the precision of implant placement with sleeve-in-sleeve and sleeve-on-drill static computer assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) designs.

Materials and methods

Thirty-two models were fabricated simulating a patient with bilateral missing first premolar. Eight models (sixteen implants) were assigned in each group: Group A, B and C represented sleeve-in-sleeve design with 2, 4 and 6 mm sleeve height respectively. Group D represented integrated sleeve-on-drill design with 4 mm sleeve height. 3D deviation at implant platform, apex and angular deviation were measured. Data were analyzed using one way ANOVA (P < 0.05).

Results

The overall deviation at platform ranged from 0.40 ± 0.14 mm (group A) to 0.73 ± 1.54 mm (group C), at apex from 0.46 ± 0.16 mm (group A) to 1.07 ± 0.37 mm (group C) and the angular deviation ranged from 0.86 ± 0.89° (group A) to 3.40 ± 1.29° (group C). Group A and B showed significantly less deviation than groups C and D (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in all parameters measured between group A and B, as well as between group C and D (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Sleeve-in-sleeve sCAIS demonstrated higher precision than sleeve-on-drill sCAIS.

Accuracy of navigation guided implant surgery for immediate loading complete arch restorations: Prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess navigation accuracy for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading of digitally prefabricated provisional.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive edentulous and terminal dentition patients requiring at least one complete-arch FDP were treated between December 2020 and January 2022. Accuracy was evaluated by superimposing pre-operative and post-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), recording linear (mm) and angular (degrees) deviations. T-tests were performed to investigate the potential effect of the registration algorithm (fiducial-based vs. fiducial-free), type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm (teeth vs. bone screws), site characteristic (healed vs. post-extractive), implant angulation (axial vs. tilted), type of arch (maxilla vs. mandible) on the accuracy with p-value <0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients, 36 complete-arches, and 161 implants were placed. The overall mean angular deviation was 2.19° (SD 1.26°). The global platform and apex mean deviations were 1.17 mm (SD 0.57 mm), and 1.30 mm (SD 0.62 mm). Meaningful global platform (p = 0.0009) and apical (p = 0.0109) deviations were experienced only between healed and post-extraction sites. None of the analyzed variables significantly influenced angular deviation. Minor single-axis deviations were reported for the type of jaw (y-axis at implant platform and apex), registration algorithm (y-axis platform and z-axis deviations), and type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to implant angulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the study limitations navigation was reliable for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading digitally pre-fabricated FDP. AI-driven surface anatomy identification and calibration protocol made fiducial-free registration as accurate as fiducial-based, teeth and bone screws equal as references. Implant site characteristics were the only statistically significant variable with healed sites reporting higher accuracy compared to post-extractive. Live-tracked navigation surgery enhanced operator performance and accuracy regardless of implant angulation and type of jaw. A mean safety room of about 1 mm and 2° should be considered.

Guided versus freehand single implant placement: A 3-year parallel randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The present parallel randomized clinical trial aimed to assess, after a 3-year follow-up period, whether the choice of surgical technique-either manual or guided-and of the operator - non-expert operator or skilled - can affect the stability of peri‑implant marginal bone levels in implants placed 1 mm sub-crestal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients received platform-switched implants (Anyridge, MegaGen Implant Co., Gyeongbuk, South Korea) featuring a 5-degree internal conical connection and supporting single screw-retained fixed crowns. The implants were randomly assigned to be placed through a digitally static guided surgery procedure (Test group - GS) or a freehand surgical technique (Control Group - FH). A non-expert operator (fewer than 20 implants placed in his professional activity) was selected to perform procedures for the GS Group, while a skilled operator (with over 1000 implants placed in his professional activity) was chosen for the FH Group. Marginal bone level (MBL) was measured at prosthesis installation (t0) and at 1 (t1), 2 (t2) and 3 years (t3) of follow-up. Changes in MBL from t0 to t3 were analyzed through periapical radiographs. Moreover, MBL changes at all time points were correlated to different supra-crestal soft tissue heights (STH): less than 3 and ≥ 3 mm, respectively.

RESULTS

60 implants in 18 patients were examined, with 30 implants allocated to the GS group and 30 to the FH group. The difference in MBL change between the two groups was 0.11 ± 0.22 mm, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.61). At the time of prosthetic loading, the mean MBL for implants with STH less than 3 mm was 0.33 mm higher than implants with STH ≥ 3 mm, though this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.065).

CONCLUSIONS

Digitally static guided implant placement, performed by a non-expert operator, does not limit marginal bone remodeling, when compared to a freehand procedure performed by an experienced operator.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

After correct and careful planning, early marginal bone levels (MBL) around conical connection, platform-switched implants placed sub-crestally may be stable in time. Digital planning and surgery have the potential to assist non-expert clinicians in achieving implant placements with comparable outcomes to those performed by experts.

The effect on the performance of a dynamic navigation system of superimposing a standard tessellation language (STL) file obtained with an intraoral scan on a cone beam computer tomograph (CBCT). An experimental in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy and operative time of implant placement using a dynamic computer assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) system based on a cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) image, with and without superimposing a standard tessellation language (STL) file of an intraoral scan of the patient.

METHODS

Ten identical resin models simulating an upper maxilla with posterior edentulism were assigned to two groups. In the CBCT+STL group, a CBCT file and an intraoral STL file were superimposed and used for registration; in the CBCT group, registration was performed using CBCT images. Six implants were placed in each model using the Navident® dynamic navigation system. Anatomy registration was performed by tracing fiducial points on the CBCT or STL image, depending on the group. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT images were overlaid to assess implant placement accuracy.

RESULTS

Sixty implants were analyzed (30 implants in each group). 3D platform deviation was significantly lower (mean difference (MD): 0.17 mm; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.01 to 0.23; P = 0.039) in the CBCT+STL group (mean: 0.71 mm; standard deviation (SD): 0.29) than in the CBCT group (mean: 0.88 mm; SD: 0.39). The remaining accuracy outcome variables (angular deviation MD: -0.01; platform lateral deviation MD: 0.08 mm; apex global MD: 0.01 mm; apex depth MD: 0.33 mm) and surgery time (MD: 3.383 min.) were similar in both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of an intraoral scan (STL) seems to reduce deviations slightly in dental implant placement with dCAIS systems. However, the clinical repercussion of this improvement is questionable.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Superimposing an intraoral scan on the CBCT image does not seem to increase the accuracy of dCAIS systems but can be useful when radiographic artifacts are present.

Development and accuracy assessment of a crown lengthening surgery robot for use in the esthetic zone: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Crown lengthening surgery has been widely used to enhance the health and esthetics of anterior teeth, and its accuracy significantly influences surgical outcomes. However, the feasibility and accuracy of a robot system for crown lengthening surgery remains unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to develop a crown lengthening surgery robot and evaluate its accuracy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A robotic crown lengthening surgery system consisting of a robotic arm, a robotic software system, and an optical tracking device was designed. Intraoral scanning and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) were performed on 18 artificial dentition models. The data were imported into the planning software program to synthesize a surgical path for gingivectomy and alveolectomy. Subsequently, a robotic arm equipped with a high-speed handpiece was used to perform these surgical procedures. Postoperatively, the models were rescanned for evaluation, with the accuracy (trueness ±precision) of the surgical outcomes of gingivectomy and alveolectomy being assessed from the trajectories in the highest, lowest, and overall regions. Differences between groups were analyzed by using the independent sample t test and the Levene test (α=.05).

RESULTS

Crown lengthening surgery was feasible in vitro using the robot developed in this study. The overall robot-assisted crown lengthening surgery accuracy (trueness ±precision) of gingivectomy (0.23 ±0.08 mm) was significantly higher than that of alveolectomy (0.33 ±0.11 mm) (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted crown lengthening surgery had acceptable accuracy generally and can be considered a feasible treatment option.

Accuracy of immediate dental implant placement with task-autonomous robotic system and navigation system: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement in a single tooth gap, including the postextraction site and healed site, using a task-autonomous robotic system and a dynamic navigation system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty partially edentulous models requiring both immediate and conventional implant placement were randomly divided into a robotic system group and a navigation system group. The coronal, apical, and angular deviations of the implants were measured and assessed between the groups.

RESULTS

The deviations in immediate implant placement were compared between the robotic system and dynamic navigation system groups, showing a mean (±SD) coronal deviation of 0.86 ± 0.36 versus 0.70 ± 0.21 mm (p = .101), a mean apical deviation of 0.77 ± 0.34 versus 0.95 ± 0.38 mm (p = .127), and a mean angular deviation of 1.94 ± 0.66° versus 3.44 ± 1.38° (p < .001). At the healed site, significantly smaller coronal deviation (0.46 ± 0.29 vs. 0.70 ± 0.30 mm, p = .005), apical deviation (0.56 ± 0.30 vs. 0.85 ± 0.25 mm, p < .001), and angular deviation (1.36 ± 0.54 vs. 1.80 ± 0.70 mm, p = .034) were found in the robotic system group than in the dynamic navigation group.

CONCLUSIONS

The position in both immediate and conventional implant placement was more precise with the task-autonomous robotic system than with the dynamic navigation system. Its performance in actual clinical applications should be confirmed in further trials.

Computer-assisted and robotic implant surgery: Assessing the outcome measures of accuracy and educational implications

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to (1) critically evaluate the outcomes measures used to assess the accuracy of implant placement with Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) and (2) review the evidence supporting the efficient implementation of CAIS in training and education of clinicians.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted aiming to identify (a) clinical trials assessing accuracy of implant placement with CAIS, and (b) clinical trials or simulation/cadaver studies where CAIS was utilised and assessed for the training/education of clinicians. Studies since 1995 were assessed for suitability and data related to the outcomes measures of accuracy and educational efficacy were extracted and synthesised.

RESULTS

Accuracy of CAIS has been mainly assessed through surrogate measures. Individual clinical trials have not shown any difference between static and dynamic CAIS, but recent meta-analyses suggest an advantage of dynamic CAIS in reducing angular deviation. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS might offer higher accuracy than each of the two used alone. Dynamic CAIS is suitable for novice surgeons and might even have added value as an education tool for implant surgery, although mastering the technique requires longer training than static.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses of large samples, new and diverse outcomes measures, as well as benchmarking of levels of accuracy with specific clinical outcomes will help to better understand the potential and limitations of CAIS. Dynamic CAIS is suitable for novice operators, but educational interventions distributed over longer periods of time will be required for mastery of the process.

Accuracy of different registration areas using active and passive dynamic navigation systems in dental implant surgery: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To gauge the relative accuracy of the use of passive and active dynamic navigation systems when placing dental implants, and to determine how registration areas affect the performance of these systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty implants were assigned to be placed into 40 total resin mandible models missing either the left or right first molars using either passive or active dynamic navigation system approaches. U-shaped tube registration devices were fixed in the edentulous site for 20 models each on the left or right side. Planned and actual implant positions were superimposed to assess procedural accuracy, and parameters including 3D entry deviation, angular deviation, and 3D apex deviation were evaluated with Mann-Whitney U tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Respective angular, entry, and apex deviation values of 1.563 ± 0.977°, 0.725 ± 0.268 mm, and 0.808 ± 0.284 mm were calculated for all included implants, with corresponding values of 1.388 ± 1.090°, 0.789 ± 0.285 mm, and 0.846 ± 0.301 mm in the active group and 1.739 ± 0.826°, 0.661 ± 0.236 mm, and 0.769 ± 0.264 mm in the passive group. Only angular deviation differed significantly among groups, and the registration area was not associated with any significant differences among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Passive and active dynamic navigation approaches can achieve comparable in vitro accuracy. Registration on one side of the missing single posterior tooth area in the mandible can complete single-tooth implantation on both sides of the posterior teeth, highlighting the promise of further clinical research focused on this topic.

Accuracy analysis of robotic-assisted immediate implant placement: A retrospective case series

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of a robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) for immediate implant placement.

METHODS

Patients requiring immediate implant placement in the maxillary anterior region were enrolled for r-CAIS. Before surgery, the patients underwent a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan with a positioning marker. Virtual implant placement position and drilling sequences were planned. Following spatial registration and calibration, the implants were placed with the robotic system under supervision. A postoperative CBCT was taken to control the actual implant positions. The DICOM data of the virtually planned and the actually placed implant were superimposed and registered through the accuracy verification software of the robotic system. The accuracy was calculated automatically. The deviation at the mesial-distal, labial-palatal, and apico-coronal directions were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients with 20 implants were included. No adverse surgical events or postoperative complications were reported. The global platform, apex, and angular deviation were 0.75 ± 0.20 mm (95 % CI: 0.65 to 0.84 mm), 0.70 ± 0.27 mm (95 % CI: 0.57 to 0.82 mm), and 1.17 ± 0.73° (95 % CI: 0.83 to 1.51°), respectively. Moreover, the vertical platform and apex deviation were 0.50 ± 0.31 mm, (95 % CI: 0.35 to 0.64 mm) and 0.48 ± 0.32 mm, (95 % CI: 0.33 to 0.63 mm), respectively. All the placed implant positions were further labial and apical than the planned ones, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

High accuracy of immediate implant placement was achieved with the robotic system.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Our study provided evidence to support the potential of the robotic system in implant placement, even in challenging scenarios.

How palatal vault morphology and screw length influence the accuracy of dynamic computer-guided orthodontic miniscrew insertion. A prospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of palatal vault morphology and screw length on the accuracy of miniscrew insertion in dynamic computer-assisted surgery (d-CAS).

METHODS

Twenty-four subjects were allocated into three groups, according to their palatal vault morphology (Group A: medium; Group B: steep/high; Group C: low/flat) and the length of miniscrew used. For each subject, two miniscrews were inserted using a dynamic navigation system. To assess the accuracy of insertion, a postoperative CBCT was performed, and the pre- and post-operative scans were superimposed. Five variables were evaluated: Entry-3D, Entry-2D, Apex-3D, Apex-vertical and angular deviation. Descriptive statistics, Shapiro-wilk, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests were used for the statistical analysis. The level of significance was P ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean angular deviation values revealed strong discrepancies amongst the groups (Group A:7.11°±5.70°; Group B:13.30°±7.76°; Group C:4.92°±3.15°) and significant differences were found regarding the Apex-3D (P = 0.036) and angular deviations (P = 0.008). A Dunn's test revealed differences in angular deviation between the medium and high/steep palate group (P = 0.004), and between low/flat and high/steep palate group (P = 0.01) but did not confirm any significant difference in the Apex-3D parameter (Group A-B P = 0.10; Group B-C, P = 0.053; Group A-C, P = 1.00). No significant differences were found regarding the length of the miniscrews.

CONCLUSIONS

Palatal vault morphology is a factor that influences the accuracy of miniscrew insertion in d-CAS. In subjects with steep and high palatal vaults, insertion accuracy is lower when considering the angular deviation value. Miniscrew length does not influence accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although computer-guided surgery assists the clinician in preventing damage to nearby anatomical structures, individual anatomical variability is a crucial variable. In subjects with a high/steep palate, greater attention should be paid during the planning phase in order to allow for a wide margin from adjacent anatomical structures to achieve better outcomes.

Accuracy of implant placement using a mixed reality-based dynamic navigation system versus static computer-assisted and freehand surgery: An in Vitro study

PURPOSE

This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement in partially edentulous maxillary models using a mixed reality-based dynamic navigation (MR-DN) system to conventional static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) and a freehand (FH) method.

METHODS

Forty-five partially edentulous models (with teeth missing in positions #15, #16 and #25) were assigned to three groups (15 per group). The same experienced operator performed the model surgeries using an MR-DN system (group 1), s-CAIS (group 2) and FH (group 3). In total, 135 dental implants were placed (45 per group). The primary outcomes were the linear coronal deviation (entry error; En), apical deviation (apex error; Ap), XY and Z deviations, and angular deviation (An) between the planned and actual (post-surgery) position of the implants in the models. These deviations were computed as the distances between the stereolithographic (STL) files for the planned implants and placed implants captured with an intraoral scanner.

RESULTS

Across the three implant sites, the MR-DN system was significantly more accurate than the FH method (in XY, Z, En, Ap and An) and s-CAIS (in Z, Ap and An), respectively. However, S-CAIS was more accurate than MR-DN in XY, and no difference was found between MR-DN and s-CAIS in En.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this study (in vitro design, only partially edentulous models), implant placement accuracy with MR-DN was superior to that of FH and similar to that of s-CAIS.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In vitro, MR-DN showed greater accuracy in implant positioning than FH, and similar accuracy to s-CAIS: it could, therefore, represent a new option for the surgeon. However, clinical studies are needed to determine the feasibility of MR-DN.

Accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic system in partial edentulism: A pilot clinical study

OBJECTIVES

Robots are increasingly being used for surgical procedures in various specialties. However, information about the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant surgery is lacking. This pilot clinical study aimed to investigate the accuracy of an autonomous dental implant robotic (ADIR) system in partially edentulous cases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The ADIR system was used to place a total of 20 implants in 13 participants. Implant deviation from the planned positions was assessed to determine accuracy. The entry, apex, and angular deviations were described as means ± standard deviation. A two-sample t test was used to compare implant deviation between the flap and flapless groups and between maxillary and mandibular implants (α = .05).

RESULTS

The entry, apex, and angular deviations were 0.65 ± 0.32 mm, 0.66 ± 0.34 mm, and 1.52 ± 1.01°, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the flap and flapless approaches (P > .05). No adverse events were encountered in any of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

DIR accuracy in this clinical series was comparable to that reported for static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. Robotic computer-assisted implant surgery may be useful for dental implant placement, potentially improving the quality and safety of the procedure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The findings of this study showed that the ADIR system could be useful for dental implant surgery.

The safety of maxillary sinus floor elevation and the accuracy of implant placement using dynamic navigation

OBJECTIVE

To date, it remains a challenge to conduct maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) owing to heterogeneity of anatomical structures and limited operative visibility of the maxillary sinus. The aim of this study is to investigate the safety of MSFE and the accuracy of implant placement using dynamic navigation.

METHODS

Forty-two implants were placed in thirty-five patients requiring implantation in posterior maxilla with dynamic navigation. They were assigned to either lateral window sinus floor elevation (LWSFE) group (n = 22) or transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) group (n = 20) according to the residual alveolar bone height (RBH). Platform deviation, apex deviation and angular deviation between actual and planned implant placement were measured in precision evaluation software. Three deviations of two groups were compared via SPSS 22.0 software.

RESULTS

Neither accidental bleeding nor perforation of Schneiderian membrane occurred in any patients. The actual window position of LWSFE was consistent with the preoperative design. There were no significant differences in platform, apex and angular deviations between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this study the dynamic navigation harvested clinically acceptable safety of MSFE and accuracy for implant placement in posterior maxillary region. The dynamic navigation would provide the clinician with assistance in achieving precise preoperative planning and reducing complications in surgical procedures. The granular bone grafts used in the LWSFE did not significantly affection on the accuracy of the simultaneous implant placement under the guidance of dynamic navigation.

Does dynamic navigation assisted student training improve the accuracy of dental implant placement by postgraduate dental students: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of implant placement in models and satisfaction in dynamic navigation assisted postgraduate dental students training.

METHODS

Postgraduate dental students who had at least one year of dental clinical practice with no experience in dental implant surgeries were included. Students were instructed to make treatment plans in the dynamic navigation system. Each student placed two maxillary right incisors, using freehand approach at first and then under dynamic navigation. The implant position was compared with treatment plan. Factors influencing the accuracy of implants placed under dynamic navigation were analyzed. Student acceptance towards the training and use of dynamic navigation was recorded using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 21 students placed 42 implants. For freehand implant placement, the median entry point deviation, apex point deviation, and implant axis deviation was 3.79 mm, 4.32 mm, and 10.08°. For dynamic guided implant placement, the median entry point deviation, apex point deviation, and implant axis deviation was 1.29 mm, 1.25 mm, and 4.89° (p < 0.001). The accuracy of dynamic guided implant was not influenced by student gender or familiarity with computer games. All students were satisfied with the training.

CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic navigation system assisted students in improving the accuracy of implant placement and was well accepted by students.

Verification of the accuracy of dynamic navigation for conventional and mouthpiece methods: in vivo study

BACKGROUND

Dynamic navigation for implant placement is becoming popular under the concept of top-down treatment. The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of a dynamic navigation system for implant placement.

METHODS

Implant placement was performed on 38 patients using 50 implant fixtures. Patients in group C were treated using a conventional method, in which thermoplastic clips were fixed to the teeth, and patients in group M were treated using thermoplastic clips fixed to a mouthpiece attached to the teeth. The groups were compared to verify whether an accuracy difference existed. A treatment planning support program for dental implants was used to superimpose the postoperative computed tomography data on the preoperative implant design data to measure the entry point, apex point, and angular deviation.

RESULTS

The accuracy of group C was 1.36 ± 0.51 mm for entry point, 1.30 ± 0.59 mm for apex point, and 3.20 ± 0.74° for angular deviation. The accuracy of group M was 1.06 ± 0.31 mm for the entry point, 1.02 ± 0.30 mm for the apex point, and 2.91 ± 0.97° for angular deviation. Significant differences were observed in the entry and apex points between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that group M exhibited better accuracy than group C, indicating that the stability of the thermoplastic clip is important for ensuring the accuracy of the dynamic navigation system. No previous studies have verified the accuracy of this system using the mouthpiece method, and additional data is required to confirm its accuracy for dental implant placement. The mouthpiece method improves the accuracy of implant placement and provides a safer implant treatment than the conventional method.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), Registration Number: UMIN000051949, URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view_his.cgi on August 21, 2023.

Axial and tilted implant surgical technique assisted by an autonomous dental implant robot: A clinical report

Optimal implant placement is essential for long-term implant survival and satisfactory prosthodontic outcomes. Autonomous dental implant robots have been reported to achieve accurate implant placement with satisfactory outcomes. This clinical report describes the use of an autonomous dental implant robot for axial and tilted implant placement in an edentulous mandible.

Navigating the future of guided dental implantology: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this scoping review was to understand the development of robotics and its accuracy in placing dental implants when compared to other forms of guided surgery.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on the electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane, and Science direct with the following queries: ((robotics) AND (dental implant)) AND (accuracy). The search timeline was between 2017 and 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were screened for title and abstract, of which 16 were deemed eligible for inclusion. Thirty-one articles were excluded mainly because they were out of topic (not relevant) or not in English. In total, 16 articles were included for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review thoroughly analyses 5 years of literature concerning the evolution of robotics in dental implant surgery, underscoring the necessity for additional research on nascent technologies reported and a comparative study with static and dynamic systems for clinical efficacy evaluation.

The impacts of registration-and-fixation device positioning on the performance of implant placement assisted by dynamic computer-aided surgery: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of dynamic computer-aided surgery (dCAS) in replacing a single missing posterior tooth, we compare outcomes when using registration-and-fixation devices positioned anterior or posterior to the surgical site. Registration is performed on either the anterior or opposite posterior teeth.

METHODS

Forty individuals needing posterior single-tooth implant placement were randomly assigned to anterior or posterior registration. Nine parameters were analyzed to detect the deviations between planned and actual implant placement, using Mann-Whitney and t-tests for nonnormally and normally distributed data, respectively.

RESULTS

The overall average angular deviation for this study was 2.08 ± 1.12°, with the respective average 3D platform and apex deviations of 0.77 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.32 mm. Angular deviation values for individuals in the anterior and posterior registration groups were 1.58°(IQR: 0.98°-2.38°) and 2.25°(IQR: 1.46°-3.43°), respectively (p = .165), with 3D platform deviations of 0.81 ± 0.29 mm and 0.74 ± 0.36 mm (p = .464), as well as 3D apex deviations of 0.89 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.33 mm (p = .986). No significant variations in absolute buccolingual (platform, p = .659; apex, p = .063), apicocoronal (platform, p = .671; apex, p = .649), or mesiodistal (platform, p = .134; apex, p = .355) deviations were observed at either analyzed levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Both anterior and posterior registration approaches facilitate accurate dCAS-mediated implant placement for single missing posterior teeth. The device's placement (posterior-to or anterior-to the surgical site) did not affect the clinician's ability to achieve the planned implant location.

Accuracy of 3 calibration methods of computer-assisted dynamic navigation for implant placement: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Dynamic navigation for implant placement has been reported to be more accurate than freehand surgery. However, the accuracy of the calibration methods used for navigation in partially edentulous individuals with distal extensions remains unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study on dental models was to evaluate the accuracy of 3 calibration methods of dynamic navigation for implant placement in the distal extension of partially edentulous arches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eleven standardized polyurethane mandibular models with distal extensions were prepared. The left first molar, second molar, and second premolar from each model (33 tooth sites) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 calibration methods: U-shaped tube embedded with radiopaque markers, anatomic tooth cusps, and bone markers with the random number table method. Preoperative and postoperative cone beam computed tomography images were obtained for deviation analyses. The primary outcomes were 3-dimensional (3D) deviation at the implant platform and apex and angular deviation. Differences among the test groups were analyzed by using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean ±standard deviation 3D deviations were 0.78 ±0.34, 1.86 ±0.91, and 1.44 ±0.57 mm at the implant platform and 0.79 ±0.35, 2.19 ±1.01, and 1.49 ±0.50 mm at the apex in the U-shaped tube, tooth cusp, and bone marker groups, respectively. The 3D deviations at the implant platform and apex were significantly different among the groups (P<.01). The angular deviation was 1.36 ±0.54, 2.95 ±2.07, and 2.92 ±2.45 degrees, with no significant differences among the groups (P=.092).

CONCLUSIONS

In the dynamic navigation of implant placement in the distal extension of partially edentulous arches, the U-shaped tube calibration with radiopaque markers was more accurate than the anatomic tooth cusp or bone marker calibration.

Clinical evaluation of autonomous robotic-assisted full-arch implant surgery: A 1-year prospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and 1-year clinical follow-up performance of dental implant placement with an autonomous dental implant robot (ADIR) system in full-arch implant surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve patients with edentulous arches or final dentition received 102 implants using the ADIR system. Global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and global angular deviation between the planned and actual implants were calculated after surgery. Data were statistically analyzed for factors including jaws, implant positions, patient sequences, implant systems, and implant length. Surgery duration was recorded. Patients were followed for 3 months and 1 year after surgery. Periodontal parameters, buccal bone thickness (BBT), and facial vertical bone wall peak (IP-FC) were recorded.

RESULTS

Among the 102 implants, the mean (SD) global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and global angular deviation were 0.53 (0.19) mm, 0.58 (0.17) mm, and 1.83 (0.82)°, respectively. The deviation differences between the mandible and maxilla did not show statistical significance (p > .05). No statistically significant differences were found for the jaws, implant positions, patient sequences, implant systems, and implant length to the deviations (p > .05). The periodontal parameters, the BBT, and IP-FC remained stable during 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The ADIR system showed excellent positional accuracy. The 1-year follow-up after full-arch implant surgery indicated that the ADIR system could achieve promising clinical performance. Additional clinical evidence is requisite to furnish guidelines for the implementation of the ADIR system in full-arch implant surgery.

Accuracy of implant placement with computer-aided static, dynamic, and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

This systematic review explores the accuracy of computerized guided implant placement including computer-aided static, dynamic, and robot-assisted surgery. An electronic search up to February 28, 2023, was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases using the search terms "surgery", "computer-assisted", "dynamic computer-assisted", "robotic surgical procedures", and "dental implants". The outcome variables were discrepancies including the implant's 3D-coronal, -apical and -angular deviations. Articles were selectively retrieved according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the data were quantitatively meta-analysed to verify the study outcomes. Sixty-seven articles were finally identified and included for analysis. The accuracy comparison revealed an overall mean deviation at the entry point of 1.11 mm (95% CI: 1.02-1.19), and 1.40 mm (95% CI: 1.31-1.49) at the apex, and the angulation was 3.51˚ (95% CI: 3.27-3.75). Amongst computerized guided implant placements, the robotic system tended to show the lowest deviation (0.81 mm in coronal deviation, 0.77 mm in apical deviation, and 1.71˚ in angular deviation). No significant differences were found between the arch type and flap operation in cases of dynamic navigation. The fully-guided protocol demonstrated a significantly higher level of accuracy compared to the pilot-guided protocol, but did not show any significant difference when compared to the partially guided protocol. The use of computerized technology clinically affirms that operators can accurately place implants in three directions. Several studies agree that a fully guided protocol is the gold standard in clinical practice.

Digital design of a hybrid bone and tooth-supported surgical guide in patients with unilateral few remaining natural teeth: a dental technique

A technique for the design of a hybrid tooth and bone-supported implant drilling guide is described. The patient was scanned using cone beam computed tomography and an optical intraoral scanner. The dicom file was segmented according to the area of interest composed of bone and the remaining natural teeth. The Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file was trimmed to only the teeth providing support, followed by merging between the bone and teeth files in one STL. The implant drilling guide was designed with the Real Guide software program, and the file was 3-dimensionally printed in clear surgical guide resin. This technique offers an accurate, cost-effective digitally designed implant placement guide for patients with long-span distal extension edentulous areas and few remaining natural dentitions providing distal bone support. It can also be used in patients with hemi maxillectomy for zygomatic implant placement. This type of surgical guide provides more accuracy in implant surgeries that require flab elevation by gaining more support from the remaining natural dentition.

Placement accuracy and primary stability of implants in the esthetic zone using dynamic and static computer-assisted navigation: A retrospective case-control study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Both the placement accuracy and primary stability of implants are important to implant therapy in the esthetic zone. The effect of dynamic and static computer-assisted navigation on the primary stability of implants in the esthetic zone remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this case-control study was to investigate the effect of dynamic and static computer-assisted navigation on the placement accuracy and primary stability of implants in the esthetic zone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Partially edentulous participants who received at least 1 implant in the anterior maxilla using either fully guided static or dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS, d-CAIS) from January 2020 to February 2022 were screened. Participant demographic information, timing of implant placement, primary stability represented by the insertion torque value (ITV) in Ncm, and implant survival were collected from the treatment record. Bone quality at the implant sites was determined according to the Lekholm and Zarb classification. The accuracy of implant placement represented by the linear (platform: Dpl, mm; apex: Dap, mm) and angular deviations (axis: Dan, degree) between the planned and placed implants was evaluated based on the preoperative surgical plan and postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. A statistical analysis of the data was completed by using the chi-squared, Fisher exact, Student t, and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 32 study participants (38 implants) were included. The groups of s-CAIS (16 participants, 18 implants) and d-CAIS (16 participants, 20 implants) were statistically comparable in sex (P=.072), age (P=.548), bone quality (P=.671), and timing of implant placement (P=.719). All implants survived during an average follow-up period of 13 months. The d-CAIS group showed close linear deviations (Dpl 1.07 ±0.57 mm, Dap 1.26 ±0.53 mm) but lower angular deviation (Dan 2.14 ±1.20 degrees) and primary stability (ITV 25.25 ±7.52 Ncm) than the s-CAIS group (Dpl 0.92 ±0.46 mm, Dap 1.31 ±0.43 mm, Dan 3.31 ±1.61 degrees, ITV 30.56 ±11.23 Ncm, PDpl=.613, PDap=.743, PDan=.016, PITV=.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable linear positioning accuracy and higher angular deviation were found for implants placed in the esthetic zone by using s-CAIS than when using d-CAIS. Higher primary stability of implants may be achieved by using s-CAIS, as s-CAIS seemed to have higher osteotomy accuracy than d-CAIS.

Immediate implant placement in the posterior mandibular region was assisted by dynamic real-time navigation: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Efficient utilization of residual bone volume and the prevention of inferior alveolar nerve injury are critical considerations in immediate implant placement (IIP) within the posterior mandibular region. Addressing these challenges, this study focuses on the clinical efficacy and implant accuracy of dynamic real-time navigation, an emerging technology designed to enhance precision in implantation procedures.

METHODS

This study included 84 patients with 130 implants undergoing immediate placement in the posterior mandibular region. Stratified into dynamic navigation, static guide plate, and freehand implant groups, clinical indicators, including initial stability, distance to the inferior alveolar nerve canal, depth of implant placement, and various deviations, were systematically recorded. Statistical analysis, employing 1- or 2-way ANOVA and Student's t-test, allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of each technique.

RESULTS

All 130 implants were successfully placed with an average torque of 22.53 ± 5.93 N.cm. In the navigation group, the distance to the inferior alveolar nerve and the depth of implant placement were significantly greater compared to the guide plate and freehand groups (P < 0.05). Implant deviation was significantly smaller in both the navigation and guide plate groups compared to the freehand group(P < 0.05). Additionally, the navigation group exhibited significantly reduced root and angle deviations compared to the guide plate group(P < 0.05), highlighting the superior precision of navigation-assisted immediate implant placement.

CONCLUSIONS

It is more advantageous to use dynamic navigation rather than a static guide plate and free-hand implant insertion for immediate posterior mandibular implant implantation.

Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement with Dynamic Navigation-Investigation of the Influence of Two Different Optical Reference Systems: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This randomized prospective clinical study aims to analyze the differences between the computer-assisted planned implant position and the clinically realized implant position using dynamic navigation. In the randomized prospective clinical study, 30 patients were recruited, of whom 27 could receive an implant (BLT, Straumann Institut AG, Basel, Switzerland) using a dynamic computer-assisted approach. Patients with at least six teeth in their jaws to be implanted were included in the study. Digital planning was performed using cone beam tomography imaging, and the visualization of the actual situation was carried out using an intraoral scan. Two different workflows with differently prepared reference markers were performed with 15 patients per group. The actual clinically achieved implant position was recorded with scan bodies fixed to the implants and an intraoral scan. The deviations between the planned and realized implant positions were recorded using evaluation software. The clinical examinations revealed no significant differences between procedures A and B in the mesiodistal, buccolingual and apicocoronal directions. For the mean angular deviation, group B showed a significantly more accurate value of 2.7° (95% CI 1.6-3.9°) than group A, with a value of 6.3° (95% CI 4.0-8.7°). The mean 3D deviation at the implant shoulder was 2.35 mm for workflow A (95% CI 1.92-2.78 mm) and 1.62 mm for workflow B (95% CI 1.2-2.05 mm). Workflow B also showed significantly higher accuracy in this respect. Similar values were determined at the implant apex. The clinical examination shows that sufficiently accurate implant placement is possible with the dynamic navigation system used here. The use of different workflows sometimes resulted in significantly different accuracy results. The data of the present study are comparable with the published findings of other static and dynamic navigation procedures.

The Use of Dynamic Navigation Systems as a Component of Digital Dentistry

The development of dynamic navigation system (DNS) has facilitated the development of modern digital medicine. In the field of dentistry, the cutting-edge technology is garnering widespread recognition. Based on the principles of 3-dimensional visualization, virtual design, and precise motion tracking, DNS is mainly composed of a computer, a tracking system, specialized tracer instruments, and navigation software. DNS employs a workflow that begins with preoperative data acquisition and imaging data reconstruction, followed by surgical instrument calibration and spatial registration, culminating in real-time guided operations. Currently, the system has been applied in a broad spectrum of dental procedures, encompassing dental implants, oral and maxillofacial surgery (such as tooth extraction, the treatment of maxillofacial fractures, tumors, and foreign bodies, orthognathic surgery, and temporomandibular joint ankylosis surgery), intraosseous anesthesia, and endodontic treatment (including root canal therapy and endodontic surgery). These applications benefit from its enhancements in direct visualization, treatment precision, efficiency, safety, and procedural adaptability. However, the adoption of DNS is not without substantial upfront costs, required comprehensive training, additional preparatory time, and increased radiation exposure. Despite challenges, the ongoing advancements in DNS are poised to broaden its utility and substantially strengthen digital dentistry.

Case report and literature review: autonomous robotic system assisted palatal implantation at an anterior teeth site compromised by periapical cyst

Background

Immediate implant placement (IIP), which preserves gingival height and papilla shape while simultaneously accelerating the implant treatment period, has become a popular method due to its commendable clinical outcomes. Nonetheless, deploying immediate implants demands specific preconditions concerning the remaining alveolar bone. This poses a challenge to the accuracy of implant surgery.

Case presentation

In this report, we present the case of a 60-year-old woman with a left upper anterior tooth crown dislodged for over a month. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) revealed the absence of a labial bone wall on tooth 22, a remaining 1 mm bone wall on the labial side of the root apex, and a 17.2 mm*8.9 mm*4.7 mm shadow in the periapical region of the root apices of teeth 21 and 22, with the narrowest width on the sagittal plane being approximately 5 mm. After the surgeon removed the cyst, they completed the subsequent implantation surgery using an autonomous robot in a challenging aesthetic area. This method circumvented the potential exposure of the screw thread on the labial implant surface, assured initial implant stability.

Conclusion

Five months after the operation, the dental crown was restored. The implant remained stable, with yielding notable clinical results. To the best of our knowledge, this clinical case is the first to report the feasibility and precision of immediate implantation in anterior teeth site with periapical cyst removal, performed by an autonomous robotic surgical system. Autonomous robots exhibit exceptional accuracy by accurately controlling axial and angular errors. It can improve the accuracy of implant surgery, which may become a key technology for changing implant surgery. However, further clinical trials are still needed to provide a basis for the rapid development of robotic surgery field.

Accuracy and efficiency of a calibration approach in dynamic navigation for implant placement: An in vitro study

Background/purpose

Computer-assisted dynamic navigation surgery could provide accurate implant placement. However, its low efficiency was always criticized by dental surgeons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of a calibration approach with reflective wafers in dynamic navigation for implant placement.

Materials and methods

Eighty implants were placed in the standardized polyurethane mandibular models under dynamic navigation and divided into 2 groups according to the calibration methods (n = 40). The U-shaped tube (UT) group used a prefabricated U-shaped tube embedded with radiopaque markers. The reflective wafers (RW) group used a fixation with 3 round reflective wafers as markers. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography images were obtained for implants deviation analyses. The calibration time was used to evaluate the efficiency of the 2 methods.

Results

Significant differences were found in the trueness and efficiency between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). The 3D deviations at the implant platform and apex were smaller in UT group (0.89 ± 0.28 and 0.79 ± 0.30 mm, respectively) than in the RW group (0.99 ± 0.28 and 0.98 ± 0.30 mm, respectively). The angular deviation was larger in the UT group (2.16 ± 1.12°) than in the RW group (1.53 ± 0.88°). The calibration approach of RW group was more efficient than the UT group (2.05 ± 0.55 and 7.50 ± 0.71 min, respectively).

Conclusion

The calibration method of RW improved the efficiency significantly and achieved equivalent trueness with UT for dynamic navigation during implant placement.

Accuracy and patient-centered results of marker-based and marker-free registrations for dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare implant placement accuracy and patient-centered results between the dynamic computer-assisted implant surgeries (d-CAISs) using marker-based and marker-free registration methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double-armed, single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted, in which 34 patients requiring single implant placement at the esthetic zone were randomly assigned to the marker-based (n = 17) or marker-free (n = 17) groups. The marker-based registration was performed using a splint containing radiopaque markers, while the marker-free registration used natural teeth. The primary outcome assessed implant positioning accuracy via angular and linear deviations between preoperative and postoperative implant positions in CBCT. Patients were also surveyed about the intraoperative experience and oral health impact profile (OHIP).

RESULTS

The global linear deviations at the implant platform (0.82 ± 0.28 and 0.85 ± 0.41 mm) and apex (1.28 ± 0.34 and 0.85 (IQR: 0.64-1.50) mm) for the marker-based and marker-free groups respectively showed no significant difference. However, the angular deviation of the marker-free group (2.77 ± 0.92° ) was significantly lower than the marker-based group (4.28 ± 1.58° ). There was no significant difference in the mean postoperative OHIP scores between the two groups (p = .758), with scores of 2.74 ± 1.21 for marker-based and 2.93 ± 2.18 for marker-free groups, indicating mild oral health-related impairment in both. Notably, patients in the marker-free group showed significantly higher satisfaction (p = .031) with the treatment procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

D-CAIS with a marker-free registration method for single implantation in the anterior maxilla has advantages in improving implant placement accuracy and patients' satisfaction, without generating a significant increase in clinical time and expenses.

Accuracy in static guided implant surgery: Results from a multicenter retrospective clinical study on 21 patients treated in three private practices

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of a static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) system across different private practices.

METHODS

This retrospective clinical study was based on data retrieved from 21 patients who received 61 implants between 2018 and 2020 in 3 private practices run by surgeons with extensive experience with s-CAIS. All patients were treated using the same s-CAIS system, planning software, template manufacturing process, and surgical guides. The standard tessellation language (STL) file of the intraoral scan of the fixture taken immediately after implant placement was matched with that of the preoperative plan for comparisons of preoperative and planned implant positions with postoperative and actual implant positions. The study outcomes were linear and angular deviations between the planned and actual implant positions.

RESULTS

No surgical or postsurgical complications occurred. The overlap of the two STL files resulted in a mean angular deviation of 2.94° The mean linear deviation at the implant shoulder was 0.73 mm, and that at the apex was 1.06 mm. The mean vertical deviations at the implant shoulder and the apex were 0.29 mm and 0.01 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

All cases showed satisfactory accuracy within the limits of this study (small number of patients and retrospective design). These results might be related to the use of a standardized digital workflow by experienced operators.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The study shows that careful control of each step, from data acquisition to final execution, is key for the accuracy of stent-guided systems.

Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

Background and Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis undertake a comparison of studies that examine the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant placement in relation to static computer-assisted implant surgery (SCAIS), dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (DCAIS), and freehand procedures. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the precision of robot-assisted dental implant placement and its comparative efficacy in relation to other placement techniques. Methods: The guidelines recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used to organize and compose this review. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane) were systematically searched for pertinent articles. Articles were selected following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the selected articles were performed. Results: The initial electronic search resulted in 1087 hits. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five articles were selected for qualitative analysis, out of which three were considered for quantitative analysis. Three parameters were considered for accuracy evaluation (angular, coronal, and apical deviation). The mean angular deviation was -1.22 degrees (95% CI, -1.06--1.39), the mean coronal deviation was -0.15 mm (95% CI, -0.24--0.07), and the mean apical deviation was -0.19 mm (95% CI, -0.27--0.10). Conclusions: The robotic implant system was found to have significantly lower angular deviations and insignificantly lower coronal and apical deviations compared to DCAIS. Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that robot-assisted implant placement in resin models permits higher accuracy compared to DCAIS and SCAIS systems. However, due to the limited number of comparative studies with high heterogeneity, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Further research is necessary to confirm the clinical application of robotics in implant surgery.

The accuracy of dynamic computer assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous jaws: A retrospective case series

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using a dynamic navigation system in fully edentulous jaws and to analyze the influence of implant distribution on implant position accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Edentulous patients who received implant placement using a dynamic navigation system were included. Four to six mini screws were placed in the edentulous jaw under local anesthesia as fiducial markers. Then patients received CBCT scans. Virtual implant positions were designed in the planning software based on CBCT data. Under local anesthesia, implants were inserted under the guidance of the dynamic navigation system. CBCTs were taken following implant placement. The deviation between the actual and planned implant positions was measured by comparing the pre- and postsurgery CBCT.

RESULTS

A total of 13 edentulous patients with 13 edentulous maxillae and 7 edentulous mandibles were included, and 108 implants were placed. The average linear deviations at the implant entry point and apex were 1.08 ± 0.52 mm and 1.15 ± 0.60 mm, respectively. The average angular deviation was 2.85 ± 1.20°. No significant difference was detected in linear and angular deviations between the maxillary and mandibular implants, neither between the anterior and posterior implants.

CONCLUSIONS

The dynamic navigation system provides high accuracy for implant placement in fully edentulous jaws, while the distribution of the implants showed little impact on implant position accuracy.

A retrospective study of dynamic navigation system-assisted implant placement

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement assisted by a dynamic navigation system, as well as its influencing factors and learning curve.

METHODS

At Macao We Care Dental Center, 55 cases of implant placement using dynamic navigation were retrospectively evaluated. To evaluate their accuracy, the apex, tip, and angle deviations of preoperatively planned and postoperatively placed implants were measured. The effects of the upper and lower jaws, different sites or lateral locations of dental implants, and the length and diameter of the implants on accuracy were analyzed, as well as the variation in accuracy with the increase in the number of surgical procedures performed by dentists.

RESULTS

The implant had an apex deviation of 1.60 ± 0.94 mm, a tip deviation of 1.83 ± 1.03 mm, and an angle deviation of 3.80 ± 2.09 mm. Statistical differences were observed in the tip deviation of implants at different positions based on three factors: jaw position, lateral location, and tooth position (P < 0.05). The tip deviation of the anterior teeth area was significantly greater than those of the premolar and molar areas. There were no statistically significant differences in apex deviation, tip deviation, or angle deviation between the implants of different diameters and lengths (P > 0.05). There were significant differences in the angle deviation between the final 27 implants and the first 28 implants. Learning curve analysis revealed that angle deviation was negatively correlated with the number of surgical procedures, whereas the regression of apex deviation and tip deviation did not differ statistically.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of dynamic navigation-assisted dental implants meets the clinical needs and is higher than that of traditional implants. Different jaw positions, lateral locations, and implant diameters and lengths had no effect on the accuracy of the dental implants guided by the dynamic navigation system. The anterior teeth area had a larger tip deviation than the posterior teeth area did. As the number of dynamic implantation procedures performed by the same implant doctor increased, the angle deviation gradually decreased.

Accuracy of implant site preparation in robotic navigated dental implant surgery

BACKGROUND

Modern technological advancements have led to increase in the development of surgical robots in dentistry, resulting in excellent clinical treatment outcomes.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the accuracy of automatic robotic implant site preparation for different implant sizes by correlating planned and posttreatment positions, and to compare the performance of robotic and human freehand drilling.

METHOD

Seventy-six drilling sites on partially edentulous models were used, with three different implant sizes (Ø = 3.5 × 10 mm, 4.0 × 10 mm, 5.0 × 10 mm). The robotic procedure was performed using software for calibration and step-by-step drilling processes. After robotic drilling, deviations in the implant position from the planned position were determined. The angulation, depth, and coronal and apical diameters on the sagittal plane of sockets created by human and robotic drilling were measured.

RESULTS

The deviation of the robotic system was 3.78° ± 1.97° (angulation), 0.58 ± 0.36 mm (entry point), and 0.99 ± 0.56 mm (apical point). Comparison of implant groups showed the largest deviation from the planned position for 5 mm implants. On the sagittal plane, there were no significant differences between robotic and human surgery except for the 5-mm implant angulation, indicating similar quality between human and robotic drilling. Based on standard implant measurements, robotic drilling exhibited comparable performance to freehand human drilling.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic surgical system can provide the greatest accuracy and reliability regarding the preoperative plan for small implant diameters. In addition, the accuracy of robotic drilling for anterior implant surgery can also be comparable to that of human drilling.

Is dynamic computer-assisted surgery more accurate than the static method for dental implant placement? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Dynamic computer-assisted surgery for dental implant placement has become popular, but systematic comparisons of the accuracy of computer-assisted surgery with static surgery are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine evidence on the difference in the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted surgery compared with the static method for dental implant placement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane. Studies conducted on dental implants that compared the accuracy of positioning implants with a dynamic system with that of a static system were included. Randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and in vitro studies were included in the review. Review articles, case reports, letters, opinion articles, commentaries, and nonpeer-reviewed literature were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 26 full-text articles, 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 2 were randomized clinical trials, 2 were prospective studies, and 1 was a retrospective cohort study. The remaining 9 were in vitro studies. A total of 1633 implants were placed with the static and 902 with the dynamic method. A significant mean difference (-0.51 degrees [95% CI: -0.90, -0.13]) between dynamic and static systems was only observed in the angular deviation of in vitro studies (P=.009). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager statistical software and forest plots were generated.

CONCLUSIONS

A difference was found in the angular deviation of implants placed with the dynamic approach compared with the static system. The dynamic system was better, but this difference was not demonstrable in clinical studies. No significant difference was found in the apical and coronal deviations of the dynamic and static systems.

Accuracy and patient-centered results of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in edentulous jaws: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare implant positioning accuracy and patient-centered results between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS and d-CAIS) in edentulous jaws.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The current study retrospectively evaluated a total of 110 implants placed in 22 fully edentulous patients via s-CAIS or d-CAIS (n = 11). The accuracy of implant positioning was assessed by measuring the implant's angular deviation and deviation at the platform and apex from the preoperative design postoperatively. Patient-centered results, including preoperative and intraoperative patient-reported experiences and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, were extracted from the medical records. The nested t test and chi-square test were used to compare accuracy and patient-centered results between s-CAIS and d-CAIS postoperatively.

RESULTS

The implants in the s-CAIS group showed significantly smaller angular deviation (2.32 ± 1.23°) than those in the d-CAIS group (3.87 ± 2.75°). In contrast, the platform and apical deviation were significantly larger in s-CAIS (1.56 ± 1.19 mm and 1.70 ± 1.09 mm, respectively) than d-CAIS (1.02 ± 0.45 mm and 1.00 ± 0.51 mm, respectively). Furthermore, the implants in the s-CAIS group deviated significantly (p < 0.001) more toward the coronal direction than those in the d-CAIS group. Notably, all patients in the s-CAIS group reported an obvious foreign body sensation during surgery, representing a significant difference from the d-CAIS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to s-CAIS, d-CAIS is a reliable technique for the placement of multiple implants in fully edentulous patients with less linear deviation and less foreign body sensation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The retrospective study was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on August 8th, 2022, with registration number No. ChiCTR2200062484.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Despite the increasing use of computer- assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients, clinical evidence comparing implant positioning accuracy and patient-centered results between static and dynamic CAIS systems is scarce. Our study demonstrated that compared to s-CAIS, d-CAIS is a reliable technique for the placement of multiple implants in fully edentulous patients with less linear deviation.

Accuracy of freehand versus guided immediate implant placement: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the accuracy of immediate implant placement with freehand and static guided surgery.

METHODS

An RCT was conducted on 61 subjects who received a total of 80 dental implants. The enrolled patients were randomly allocated to two groups: freehand surgery (control group, n = 40 implants) and static guided surgery with R2Gate® (Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea, test group, n = 40 implants). Crestal and apical deviations in both mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions, as well as depth and angular deviations, were calculated by comparing the three-dimensional (3D) position of the implant in the planning software with the final implant position, revealed by an intraoral scan of the fixture after placement. The Mann-Whitney test was used for comparative assessment.

RESULTS

In the freehand group (control), crestal deviations of 1.13 ± 0.89 mm and 1.00 ± 0.76 mm were found in the mesiodistal and buccolingual directions, respectively, versus 0.34 ± 0.26 mm (p<0.001) and 0.37 ± 0.24 mm (p = 0.03) in the static guided surgery group (test). Apical deviation was also higher in the freehand group (control) than in the static guided surgery group (test) in the mesiodistal (4.04 ± 1.90 mm vs. 0.97 ± 0.55 mm, p = 0.04) and buccolingual directions (3.46 ± 1.82 mm vs. 0.94 ± 0.67 mm, p = 0.02). Freehand surgery had greater angular deviation (6.09° ± 3.23) compared to guided surgery (0.83° ± 0.53, p = 0.02). However, depth deviation was similar in the freehand surgery group (2.24 ± 1.58 mm) and static guided surgery group (0.66 ± 0.43, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement with static guided surgery demonstrated better accuracy than freehand surgery.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Guided implant surgery showed fewer deviations compared to freehand surgery in fresh extraction sockets; therefore, the use of static guides should be given preference over the freehand modality.

A digital strategy for intraoperative acquisition of actual drill position and rapid assessment of bony preparation accuracy using an intraoral scanner

A digital workflow to acquire actual position of the drill and assess bony preparation accuracy intraoperatively was described. Based on the widely used intraoral scanner, this digital workflow was a relatively practical and economical option for digital intraoperative measurement. As a result, it could help the clinician in accurate verification and immediate correction of the drill position and consequently facilitating the accurate implant placement in implant surgery.

Dynamic Implant Surgery-An Accurate Alternative to Stereolithographic Guides-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Dynamic guided surgery is a computer-guided freehand technology that allows highly accurate procedures to be carried out in real time through motion-tracking instruments. The aim of this research was to compare the accuracy between dynamic guided surgery (DGS) and alternative implant guidance methods, namely, static guided surgery (SGS) and freehand (FH). (2) Methods: Searches were conducted in the Cochrane and Medline databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective case series and to answer the following focused question: "What implant guidance tool is more accurate and secure with regard to implant placement surgery?" The implant deviation coefficient was calculated for four different parameters: coronal and apical horizontal, angular, and vertical deviations. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of 0.05 following application of the eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Twenty-five publications were included in this systematic review. The results show a non-significant weighted mean difference (WMD) between the DGS and the SGS in all of the assessed parameters: coronal (n = 4 WMD = 0.02 mm; p = 0.903), angular (n = 4 WMD = -0.62°; p = 0.085), and apical (n = 3 WMD = 0.08 mm; p = 0.401). In terms of vertical deviation, not enough data were available for a meta-analysis. However, no significant differences were found among the techniques (p = 0.820). The WMD between DGS and FH demonstrated significant differences favoring DGS in three parameters as follows: coronal (n = 3 WMD = -0.66 mm; p =< 0.001), angular (n = 3 WMD = -3.52°; p < 0.001), and apical (n = 2 WMD = -0.73 mm; p =< 0.001). No WMD was observed regarding the vertical deviation analysis, but significant differences were seen among the different techniques (p = 0.038). (4) Conclusions: DGS is a valid alternative treatment achieving similar accuracy to SGS. DGS is also more accurate, secure, and precise than the FH method when transferring the presurgical virtual implant plan to the patient.

Accuracy of dental implant placement with a robotic system in partially edentulous patients: A prospective, single-arm clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This clinical study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant positions using a robotic system in partially edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight partially edentulous patients received 31 implants using the robotic system. Deviations between the planned and placed implants were calculated after surgery. The deviations were compared with objective performance goals (OPGs) from reported studies of fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) and dynamic CAIS. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the possible effects of the type and side of the arch, implant location, and implant dimensions on the deviations.

RESULTS

The evaluation of 31 implants resulted in a mean angle deviation of 2.81 ± 1.13° (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.40-3.23°), while the 3D deviations at the implant shoulder and apex were 0.53 ± 0.23 mm (95% CI 0.45-0.62 mm) and 0.53 ± 0.24 mm (95% CI 0.44-0.61 mm), respectively. The upper limits of the 95% CI of 3D deviations were lower than those of the corresponding OPGs; however, the angle deviation was similar to that of the OPG. No statistically significant differences were found for the type and side of the arch, implant location, and implant dimensions to the deviations (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic system appears to achieve higher accuracy in implant positions than static and dynamic CAIS in partially edentulous patients (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300067587).

Training of novice surgeons using dynamic computer assisted dental implant surgery: An exploratory randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Dynamic Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) systems have been shown to improve accuracy of implant placement, thus training in the use of such systems is becoming increasingly important. There is a scarcity of research on how to implement dynamic CAIS training in the settings of postgraduate university education.

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of two modes of CAIS training programs on motor skill acquisition of novice surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six postgraduate students without experience in dynamic CAIS systems were randomly assigned to a distributed training program (3 training sessions over 3 days) or a massed training (3 training sessions over the same day). A post-test involving the placement of one implant was conducted for both groups, 7 days after completion of the training. Surgical time and implant accuracy were recorded and analyzed, using independent t-tests, with 0.05 significant level.

RESULTS

Both groups reached the accuracy benchmarks expected by current standards in the use of CAIS. No significant differences with regards to accuracy were found between the groups, but a trend was documented favoring performance of distributed (mean difference-0.4, 95% confidence interval-0.7-0.1) in the accuracy at platform level. Distributed training students performed faster than massed for the third trial (mean difference-95.0, 95% confidence interval-178.8 to -11.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Novice students reached the accuracy benchmarks with the use of CAIS through both a massed and a distributed training program, while there was a strong but marginally not significant trend for higher accuracy in the distributed group. Students who received the training in the distributed format over the process of different days, performed faster. Trial registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry: https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20230109002. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization.