Accuracy of dental implant placement with or without the use of a dynamic navigation assisted system: A randomized clinical trial

Dynamic navigation-assisted flapless implant placement in the posterior mandible: a retrospective and comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of flapless implant placement in the posterior mandibular region assisted by dynamic real-time navigation.

STUDY DESIGN

This study involved 75 patients with missing posterior mandibular teeth, divided into dynamic navigation (25), static guide (27), and freehand groups (23). Postoperative measurements included implant deviations, distance from the implant apex to the nerve canal, residual bone height, insertion depth, peri-implant gingival health, marginal bone resorption, and implant success rate.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 96 implants: 32 dynamic navigation, 34 static guide, and 30 freehand. In the dynamic navigation group, neck, apex and angle deviations were significantly smaller compared to the freehand group (P <0.05). The apex and angle deviation were also smaller than the static guide group (P <0.05). Compared with other two groups, the mean distance from the implant apex to the inferior alveolar nerve canal was significantly smaller (P <0.05). The mean implant insertion depth was significantly greater (P <0.05). The utilization rate of residual bone volume was significantly higher (P <0.05). There were no significant differences in marginal bone loss or peri-implant gingival health among the groups (P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dynamic navigation-assisted flapless implantation ensures surgical safety and visualization precision, protects the inferior alveolar nerve, makes full use of residual bone volume. This method achieves precise, minimally invasive, and safe surgery, making it worthy of clinical promotion.

Beyond Accuracy: Clinical Outcomes of Computer Assisted Implant Surgery

OBJECTIVES

Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) with different technologies and modalities is becoming increasingly utilized in clinical practice. The aim of this White Paper was to synthesize evidence, reported experience, and best practices with regard to clinically relevant outcomes of static, dynamic, and robotic CAIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the literature compiled existing evidence from clinical studies up to November 2024, which was later discussed and synthesized into clinically relevant questions with a panel of international experts.

RESULTS

There is overwhelming evidence for the superiority of static, dynamic, and robotic CAIS with regard to the accuracy of implant placement and some limited evidence of superior esthetic outcomes. At the same time, outcomes related to implant primary stability, survival rates, intra- and postoperative complications, marginal bone loss, and peri-implant tissue health appear similar between guided and non-guided implant surgery, while efficiency is poorly defined and studied. The importance of accuracy in the execution of a comprehensive, prosthetically driven treatment plan is not reflected in most studies, which focus mainly on the assessment of procedures rather than entire treatment workflows. Such inherent limitations of available research might conceal some of the potential of guided CAIS.

CONCLUSIONS

Guided CAIS can achieve at least as good clinical outcomes as non-guided implant surgery. Studies that can assess the benefits of CAIS as part of a treatment workflow, rather than isolated procedures, could improve our understanding of the potential of these technologies.

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.

Accuracy in dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing computer-assisted (static, dynamic, robotics) and noncomputer-assisted (freehand, conventional guide) approaches

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Computer-assisted implant placement has been reported to provide better accuracy, particularly in complex situations, while noncomputer-assisted approaches remain effective for more straightforward procedures. However, comprehensive evidence comparing these approaches across various clinical scenarios is limited. Evaluating factors such as cost-effectiveness, edentulous span, and clinician expertise is essential for optimizing treatment planning.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement between computer-assisted and noncomputer-assisted workflows.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases (up to August 2024) was conducted using keywords related to surgery, computer-assisted techniques, and dental implants. The primary outcomes were angular, 3-dimensional (3D)-coronal, and 3D-apical deviations. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quantitative meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. In clinical studies, meta-analysis showed a mean difference (MD) of 0.65 mm (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.74; P<.001) for global coronal deviation, 1.10 mm (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.20; P<.001) for global apical deviation, and 3.87 degree (95% CI: 3.31 to 4.44; P<.001) for angular deviation, favoring the computer-assisted implant workflow, based on 22 studies. In in vitro studies, the MD was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.36 to 0.54; P<.001) for global coronal deviation, 0.63 mm (95% CI: 0.50 to 0.76; P<.001) for global apical deviation, and 3.60 degree (95% CI: 2.66 to 4.54; P<.001) for angular deviation, favoring the computer-assisted implant workflow, with data from 23 studies. Among the navigation systems, robotic-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) achieved the highest clinical accuracy across all metrics compared with noncomputer-assisted techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, computer-assisted implant workflows significantly improved the accuracy of implant placement, with r-CAIS demonstrating the highest accuracy in clinical scenarios. However, factors such as cost-effectiveness, edentulous span, and clinician expertise must be considered, as conventional methods remain suitable alternatives in certain straightforward situations. These findings highlight the importance of tailored treatment planning to optimize the outcomes of implant-supported prostheses.

Evaluation of Image Clarity in Smartglass-Supported Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Clinical Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the image quality of smartglass-supported Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (dCAIS) by testing discernibility with a Landolt ring chart reproduced with smartglasses and on the dCAIS monitor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

15 participants' discernibility was measured under four conditions using Landolt rings. Each condition measured 13 visual acuity levels, with each level comprising three rings (39 rings per condition). Under Condition 1 (control), rings were reproduced on the dCAIS monitor and viewed without smartglasses; under Condition 2, rings were reproduced on the monitor and viewed through smartglasses; under Condition 3, rings on smartglasses matched the size on monitor; and under Condition 4, rings reproduced on smartglasses filled the field of view. Visual acuity values were converted to logarithmic values and analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA.

CONCLUSIONS

Smartglasses enhance dCAIS functionality and reproducing information at the maximum perceived size achievable with smartglasses has a similar effect to visual enhancement through magnification.

Accuracy of freehand versus dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant placement: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of zygomatic implant placement using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (D-CAIS) versus the traditional freehand approach.

METHODS

An experimental in vitro study was conducted using 10 stereolithographic models randomized to two groups: D-CAIS (test group) and freehand placement (control group). A single zygomatic implant was placed on each side of the models. The accuracy of implant placement was assessed by superimposing the actual postoperative implant position, obtained via cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), with the virtual preoperative surgical plan from the preoperative CBCT. Additionally, the operated side and surgery duration were recorded. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the data.

RESULTS

The D-CAIS group demonstrated significantly greater accuracy across most outcome variables. Reductions in angular (MD = -5.33°; 95 %CI: -7.37 to -3.29; p < 0.001), coronal global (MD = -2.26 mm; 95 %CI: -2.97 to -1.55; p < 0.001), coronal horizontal 2D (MD = -1.96 mm; 95 %CI: -2.60 to -1.32; p < 0.001) and apical global deviations (MD = -3.37 mm; 95 %CI: -4.36 to -2.38; p < 0.001) were observed. Accuracy in the freehand group varied significantly between operated sides. However, the surgical procedures in the D-CAIS group were significantly longer (MD = 11.90 mins; 95 %CI: 9.37 to 14.44; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

D-CAIS navigation systems offer significantly greater accuracy in zygomatic implant placement compared to the traditional freehand technique. Additionally, D-CAIS systems may minimize discrepancies in accuracy between operated sides, though their use is associated with an increase in the duration of surgery.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

D-CAIS navigation systems improve the accuracy of zygomatic implant placement. However, an increase in the duration of surgery is to be expected.

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.

Comparative accuracy of dCAIS and freehand techniques for immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets in the maxillary aesthetic zone using a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS), with the evaluation of possible deviations versus freehand placement.

METHODS

A total of 18 implants were placed by an experienced surgeon in fresh extraction sockets of anterior teeth in 6 maxillary models. Nine implants were placed using the dCAIS system and 9 implants were placed using the conventional freehand technique. The following outcome parameters were measured and compared: positional deviation at entry, apex point and angular deviations between planned and placed implant position. Surgery time was measured for each procedure. Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed on all outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Global entry deviations were not significantly different between the two techniques (p = 0.078). dCAIS resulted in significantly more accurate implant placement in terms of global apex deviation with values of 1.28±0.36 mm and angular deviations with values of 1.29±0.64°, compared to 2.06±0.60 mm and 5.05±2.54° with freehand placement (p < 0.001). The dental implant placement time was approximately three times longer when using dCAIS (10.99 ± 3.43 min) versus freehand (3.25± 0.63 min) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

dCAIS achieved more precise immediate implant placement in terms of apex deviation and angulation than freehand placement, but increased the surgery time.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

dCAIS provides greater accuracy in the placement of immediate implants in the maxillary aesthetic zone following prosthetic-driven digital planning compared to freehand surgery.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of the accuracy of dynamic navigation and the free hand approaches in the placement of pterygoid implants in the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

Background/purpose

Pterygoid implant is a promising solution for patients with a partially or fully edentulous atrophic maxilla. However, whether dynamic navigation system will improve the accuracy of pterygoid implant surgery is still unknown. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of dynamic navigation and free-hand approaches in pterygoid implant placement in completely edentulous maxilla models.

Materials and methods

Twenty three-dimensional (3D)-printed edentulous maxilla models were assigned to two groups: the dynamic navigation system group and the free-hand group. Two pterygoid implants were planned in the bilateral pterygomaxillary area and then placed in each model. The entry, exit and angle deviations of the pterygoid implants were measured after pre- and post-operative cone-beam CT (CBCT) image fusion. Student's t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 40 pterygoid implants were placed in 20 models. The comparison deviation of the dynamic navigation group and the free-hand group showed a mean (±SD) entry deviation of 0.93 ± 0.46 mm vs. 2.28 ± 1.08 mm (P < 0.001), an exit deviation of 1.37 ± 0.52 mm vs. 3.14 ± 1.82 mm (P < 0.001), and an angle deviation of 2.41 ± 1.24° vs. 10.13 ± 4.68° (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the accuracy with regard to the side factors between the navigation group and the free-hand group.

Conclusion

The dynamic navigation system has higher accuracy for pterygoid implant placement in a complete edentulous maxilla than the free-hand approach.

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.

The precision of drill calibration for dynamic navigation

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the reproducibility of the drill calibration process in dynamic navigation guided placement of dental implants and to identify the human factors that could affect the precision of this process in order to improve the overall implant placement accuracy.

METHODS

A set of six drills and four implants were calibrated by three operators following the standard calibration process of NaviDent® (ClaroNav Inc.). The reproducibility of the position of each tip of a drill or implant was calculated in relation to the pre-planned implants' entry and apex positions. Intra- and inter-operator reliabilities were reported. The effects of the drill length and shape on the reproducibility of the calibration process were also investigated. The outcome measures for reproducibility were expressed in terms of variability range, average and maximum deviations from the mean distance.

RESULTS

A satisfactory inter-rater reproducibility was noted. The precision of the calibration of the tip position in terms of variability range was between 0.3 and 3.7 mm. We noted a tendency towards a higher precision of the calibration process with longer drills. More calibration errors were observed when calibrating long zygomatic implants with non-locking adapters than with pointed drills. Flexible long-pointed drills had low calibration precision that was comparable to the non-flexible short-pointed drills.

CONCLUSION

The clinicians should be aware of the calibration error associated with the dynamic navigation placement of dental and zygomatic implants. This should be taken in consideration especially for long implants, short drills, and long drills that have some degree of flexibility.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dynamic navigation procedures are associated with an inherent drill calibration error. The manual stability during the calibration process is crucial in minimising this error. In addition, the clinician must never ignore the prescribed accuracy checking procedures after each calibration process.

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.

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 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.

Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guides and the freehand approach in implant placement: a prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Computer-guided implant surgery has improved the quality of implant treatment by facilitating the placement of implants in a more accurate manner. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant placement in a clinical setting using three techniques: dynamic navigation, static surgical guides, and freehand placement. We also investigated potential factors influencing accuracy to provide a comprehensive evaluation of each technique's advantages and disadvantages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-four implants in 65 patients were included in this prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: dynamic navigation, static surgical guides, or freehand placement. Implants were placed using a prosthetically oriented digital implant planning approach, and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed on preoperative plans to measure accuracy. Seven deviation values were calculated, including angular, platform, and apical deviations. Demographic and consistency analyses were performed, along with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests for deviation values.

RESULTS

The mean global platform, global apical, and angular deviations were 0.99 mm (SD 0.52), 1.14 mm (SD 0.56), and 3.66° (SD 1.64°) for the dynamic navigation group; 0.92 mm (SD 0.36), 1.06 mm (SD 0.47), and 2.52° (SD 1.18°) for the surgical guide group; and 1.36 mm (SD 0.62), 1.73 mm (SD 0.66), and 5.82° (SD 2.79°) for the freehand group. Both the dynamic navigation and surgical guide groups exhibited statistically significant differences in all values except depth deviations compared to the freehand group (p < 0.05), whereas only the angular deviation showed a significant difference between the dynamic navigation and surgical guide groups (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the superior accuracy and consistency of dynamic navigation and static surgical guides compared to freehand placement in implant surgery. Dynamic navigation offers precision and flexibility. However, it comes with cost and convenience considerations. Future research should focus on improving its practicality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Register-Medical Research Foundation of Thailand (MRF) with the TCTR identification number TCTR20230804001 on 04/08/2023. It was also conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional ethics committee at the Xian Jiaotong University Hospital of Stomatology, Xian, China (xjkqII[2021] No: 043). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

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 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.