Accuracy of automatic and manual dynamic navigation registration techniques for dental implant surgery in posterior sites missing a single tooth: A retrospective clinical analysis

Dynamic Navigation in Endodontics: Scope, Benefits, and Challenges - A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Teeth exhibiting pulp canal calcification or obliteration, requiring retreatment and microsurgery, present significant challenges and necessitate clinical expertise to negate iatrogenic errors and ensure a successful outcome. Dynamic navigation system (DNS) is a recently emerged technology increasingly utilized in such complex endodontic treatments. The present review consolidates the available information about the application, advantages, disadvantages, and complications of DNS in endodontics.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar databases till April 2024. Studies that performed endodontic procedures utilizing the DNS on humans were included. A risk of bias assessment was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. Data extraction included type of DNS, application including the teeth treated, advantages, disadvantages, and complications.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles (12 case reports and 2 case series) were included in the review. DNS was used for endodontic surgery (78.3%, n = 7), negotiation of calcified canals (20.5%, n = 6), and endodontic retreatment (1.2%, n = 1). The Navigation systems used were Navident, DHC-ENDO1, and X-guide. The mean follow-up (n = 12) was 9.9 months (range: 1-24 months).

CONCLUSIONS

DNS proves to be a reliable solution for complex endodontic scenarios such as endodontic microsurgery, negotiation of obliterated pulp canals, and endodontic retreatment However, the high initial investment and steep learning curve hinder widespread adoption. Future randomized controlled trials comparing different systems are warranted to further validate the effectiveness.

Comparison of Implant Precision with Robots, Navigation, or Static Guides

Precise surgical positioning according to a digital plan is important for aesthetic and biologically stable dental implant restorations. This randomized controlled trial compared implant placement assisted by robotic surgery (RS), dynamic navigation (DN), or 3-dimensional printed static guide (SG). An overall 45 patients with a missing tooth in the premolar/molar region were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 groups. Implant positional accuracy (primary outcome), early wound healing, soft tissue microcirculation, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgeon preference were measured by calibrated blind examiners. One adverse event occurred in DN and RS. In RS (n = 15), the global platform, apex deviation, and angular deviations (mean ± SD) were 1.1 ± 0.4 mm, 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, and 4.7° ± 2.5°, respectively. Similarly, deviations were 1.3 ± 0.6 mm, 1.9 ± 0.9 mm, and 5.5° ± 3.5° in the DN group (n = 14) and 1.1 ± 0.6 mm, 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, and 6.2° ± 4.0° in the SG group (n = 13). Significantly smaller differential deviations (mesial-distal) at the platform and apex levels were found in the RS group than the SG group (P < 0.05). Surgery was significantly shorter with a SG (P < 0.001), and this was associated with better postoperative recovery at 3 d. The surgeon assessed DN as providing easier access to reach the surgical site. No significant differences were found upon comparing soft tissue microcirculation and oxygen saturation immediately, 1 h, or 7 d after surgery. Patient-reported outcomes were comparable in the 3 groups, except that patients in the SG group reported better oral health-related quality of life 3 d after surgery. It can be concluded that RS showed near-zero 3-dimensional systematic error in implant position, while DN and SG demonstrated a centrifugal error pattern. All 3 guided approaches had uneventful wound healing and acceptable patient-reported outcomes. The 3 groups had specific cost-benefit profiles. After additional technical developments, future trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods should be performed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of different guided surgical approaches.

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.

The influence of radiographic marker registration versus a markerless trace registration method on the implant placement accuracy achieved by dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the effect the radiographic marker registration (RMR) and markerless tracing registration (MTR) on implant placement accuracy using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS). Additionally, this study aimed to assess the surgical time and whether the implant location influences the accuracy of the two registration methods.

METHODS

136 dental implants were randomly allocated to the RMR or MTR group and were placed with a dCAIS in resin models. Preoperative and postoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomograms (CBCT) were overlaid and implant placement accuracy was assessed. Descriptive and multivariate analysis of the data was performed.

RESULTS

Significant differences (P < 0.001) were found for all accuracy variables except angular deviation (RMR:4.30° (SD:4.37°); MTR:3.89° (SD:3.32°)). The RMR had a mean 3D platform deviation of 1.53 mm (SD:0.98 mm) and mean apex 3D deviation of 1.63 mm (SD:1.05 mm) while the MTR had lower values (0.83 mm (SD:0.67 mm) and 1.07 mm (SD:0.86 mm), respectively). In the MTR group, implant placement in the anterior mandible was more accurate (p < 0.05). Additionally, MTR did not significantly increase the surgical time compared with RMR (P = 0.489).

CONCLUSIONS

MTR seems to increase the accuracy of implant placement using dCAIS in comparison with the RMR method, without increasing the surgical time. The operated area seems to be relevant and might influence the implant deviations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Considering the limitations of this in-vitro study, MTR seems to provide a higher accuracy in implant placement using dCAIS without increasing the surgical time. Furthermore, this method does not require radiographic markers and allows re-registration during surgery.

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 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 of computer-assisted dynamic navigation when performing coronectomy of the mandibular third molar: A pilot study

OBJECTIVES

The study represents a preliminary evaluation of the accuracy of the dynamic navigation system (DNS) in coronectomy of the mandibular third molar (M3M).

METHODS

The study included participants with an impacted M3M near the inferior alveolar canal. The coronectomy planes were designed before the surgery using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging data and then loaded into the DNS program. Intraoperatively, the navigation system was used to guide the complete removal of the target crown. Postoperative CBCT imaging was used to assess any three-dimensional deviations of the actual postoperative from the planned preoperative section planes for each patient.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients (13 teeth) were included. The root mean square (RMS) deviation of the preoperatively designed plane from the actual postoperative surface was 0.69 ± 0.21 mm, with a maximum of 1.45 ± 0.83/-1.87 ± 0.63 mm deviation. The areas with distance deviations < 1 mm, 1-2 mm, and 2-3 mm were 71.97 ± 5.72 %, 22.96 ± 6.57 %, and 4.52 ± 2.28 %, respectively. Most patients showed extremely high convexity of the surface area located in the mesial region adjacent to the base of the extraction socket. There was no observable evidence of scratching of the buccolingual bone plate at the base of the extraction socket by the handpiece drill.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide preliminary support for the use of DNS-based techniques when extracting M3M using a buccal approach. This would improve the accuracy of coronectomy and reduce the potiential damage to the surrounding tissue.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

DNS is effective for guiding coronectomy.