Accuracy of intraoral real-time navigation versus static, CAD/CAM-manufactured pilot drilling guides in dental implant surgery: an in vitro study

Impact of digital technologies on implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

For over three decades, digital technologies have been used in Implant Dentistry, beginning with the introduction of planning software for Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (S-CAIS). During this time, this field has witnessed the emergence of diverse methodologies and a proliferation of technological advancements. Today, S-CAIS is a widely adopted procedure for the placement of dental implants in both partially and fully edentulous patients, with Dynamic Computer-Assisted Surgery (D-CAIS) and Robotic-Assisted Implant Surgery (RAIS) rapidly gaining attention among dental professionals. The continuous advancements in this arena are not merely indicative of technological progress; they represent a steadfast dedication to refining precision, enhancing efficiency, and fostering innovation with the goal of optimizing patient outcomes in dental implantology.

AIMS

The purpose of the following review is to meticulously examine the spectrum of digital technologies available and to describe their protocols, advantages, and shortcomings as well as to evaluate their accuracy in implant surgery in patients with complete edentulism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review was performed following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) protocols, leveraging the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework to construct the research question and determine the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-seven records were identified for screening. After applying all the screening criteria, 41 articles were included for review and qualitative data analysis.

DISCUSSION

S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and RAIS were identified as the main technologies for computer assisted implant surgery. Their applications, characteristics, protocols and levels of accuracy were compared and described.

CONCLUSION

Taking into consideration the limitations of this study, S-CAIS appears to be the most applied and validated technology in implant surgery for fully edentulous patients followed by D-CAIS and RAIS being these last two promising initiatives in the field. Despite having similar levels of accuracy, the overall comparison showed a slightly higher values in RAIS followed by D-CAIS and S-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.

Advancing accuracy in guided implant placement: A comprehensive meta-analysis: Meta-Analysis evaluation of the accuracy of available implant placement Methods

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to determine the accuracy of currently available computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) modalities under in vitro conditions and investigate whether these novel techniques can achieve clinically acceptable accuracy.

DATA

In vitro studies comparing the postoperative implant position with the preoperative plan were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (QUIN Tool) and a sensitivity analysis was conducted using funnel plots.

SOURCES

A systematic search was performed on April 18, 2023, using the following three databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. No filters or restrictions were applied during the search.

RESULTS

A total of 5,894 studies were included following study selection. Robotic- and static CAIS (sCAIS) had the most accurate and clinically acceptable outcomes. sCAIS was further divided according to the guidance level. Among the sCAIS groups, fully guided implant placement had the greatest accuracy. Augmented reality-based CAIS (AR-based CAIS) had clinically acceptable results for all the outcomes except for apical global deviation. Dynamic CAIS (dCAIS) demonstrated clinically safe results, except for horizontal apical deviation. Freehand implant placement was associated with the greatest number of errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully guided sCAIS demonstrated the most predictable outcomes, whereas freehand sCAIS demonstrated the lowest accuracy. AR-based and robotic CAIS may be promising alternatives.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of robotic CAIS and investigate the accuracy of various CAIS modalities.

Accuracy and Self-Confidence Level of Freehand Drilling and Dynamic Navigation System of Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The impact of the experience of the clinician on learning a new skill or equipment was still an intriguing subject. The goal of this research is to determine the accuracy level of a dynamic navigation system to that of freehand drilling by expert and novice practitioners with varied levels of experience. Additionally, the duration of the surgical procedure and the self-confidence level of the surgeons were also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analog impression of the patient was used to make 20 polyurethane simulation models of the maxilla. Five expert and five inexperienced surgeons prepared the site and placed the implants at random on ten models each. Two different techniques were used to insert dental implants: freehand and dynamic navigation systems. Dental implants were placed in Group 1 utilizing a computer-assisted dynamic navigation device. The implants in Group 2 were secured using free-hand drilling. The dental implants were inserted first in the maxillary right first molar, then in the maxillary right lateral incisor, and the maxillary left second premolar. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed by employing the Evalunav software and contrasted. The coronal 3-D, apex 3-D, apex vertical depth, and angular deviations for both procedures were evaluated. A pre-tested self-confidence questionnaire was also administered to assess the self-confidence of the practitioners. The duration of the surgical time was also documented for each strategy. The t-test was used to measure the difference in accuracy and confidence levels between freehand and dynamic navigation systems among expert and novice surgeons using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 60 implants were used (three insertion sites, two methods, and 10 practitioners). Each of the five expert and novice clinicians implanted 15 implants (five models each). Except for entry 3-D, there was a statistically significant difference between the two approaches in all of the primary outcome variables. The apex 3-D (5.89±1.08 mm) and apex vertical (2.08±1.27 mm) dimensions of the dynamic navigation system were significantly smaller than those of the freehand drilling approach (p<005). Dynamic navigation and freehand drilling had angular deviations of 7.16±1.76ᵒ and 9.06±2.18ᵒ, respectively (p=0.0004). The apex vertical deviation was reduced in the navigation technique (2.07±1.5 mm) than in the freehand drilling (2.86±1.4 mm) by experienced practitioners (p=0.04). The difference in time between the two procedures was determined to be statistically highly significant (p<0.001) by both expert and novice surgeons. Furthermore, when contrasting with experienced practitioners, novice practitioners had an overall increase in surgery time (p<0.001) for both approaches.

CONCLUSION

The current in vitro study found that the dynamic navigation system enables more accurate implant placement than the freehand drilling technique, irrespective of the experience of the surgeons. However, this technique appears to benefit novice practitioners more, as they can profoundly minimize their deviations while accomplishing results comparable to those of expert surgeons.

Does implant drill design influence the accuracy of dental implant placement using static computer-assisted implant surgery? An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement in model surgeries according to the design of the drills (straight drills or step drills) used to finalize the implant bed during pilot-guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS).

METHODS

Model surgeries were carried out on resin models randomly assigned to three study groups. Virtual planning software (coDiagnostiX 10.6, Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada) was used to plan the implant positions. In Groups 1 and 2, pilot-guided sCAIS was performed. Straight drills were used in Group 1, and step drills were used in Group 2 to finalize the implant beds. In Group 3, fully guided sCAIS was performed using a universal fully guided kit (RealGUIDE Full Surgical Kit 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy). A total of 90 dental implants (Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were placed (six implants per model, five models per study group). The primary outcome variables (angular deviation, coronal global deviation, and apical global deviation) were calculated for all implants based on the comparison of the preoperative surgical plan with the postoperative scans.

RESULTS

Group 2 (coronal global deviation, 0.78 ± 0.29 mm; apical global deviation, 1.02 ± 0.56 mm) showed significantly lower values of both global deviation variables than Group 1 (coronal global deviation, 0.95 ± 0.20 mm; apical global deviation, 1.42 ± 0.49 mm). However, there was no significant difference in angular deviation between Groups 1 and 2 (7.56 ± 2.92° and 6.44 ± 2.84°). Group 3 produced significantly lower values of all three primary outcome variables (angular deviation, 2.36 ± 0.90°; coronal global deviation, 0.59 ± 0.28 mm; apical global deviation, 0.90 ± 0.29 mm) than Group 1 and significantly lower angular deviation and coronal global deviation values than Group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The design of the drills used to finalize implant osteotomies during pilot-guided sCAIS influences dental implant placement accuracy. Using step drills instead of straight drills for final osteotomies decreases deviation from the surgical plan. The fully guided approach performed better than the pilot-guided sCAIS.

Accuracy of dental implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: An in vitro study: Accuracy of static vs. dynamic CAIS

OBJECTIVES

This in-vitro study compared the accuracy of implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) at two implant sites.

METHODS

Partially edentulous maxillary models were 3D-printed, and two implants (Straumann TL RN4.1 × 10mm) were inserted in FDI positions 15 and 16 per model using two CAIS approaches (10 models per approach). A three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction tool was used for implant planning, surgical guide design, and measuring implant positioning accuracy. In static CAIS, the implants were placed with 3D-printed surgical guides (n=20); in dynamic CAIS, real-time navigation was performed (n=20). Primary outcomes were defined as coronal and apical global deviation as well as angular deviations and deviation comparison between implants placed at positions 15 and 16; the secondary outcome was the bi-directional deviation in mesial-distal, buccal-palatal, and apical-coronal direction.

RESULTS

The mean±SD 3D-deviation at implant platform and apex levels for static CAIS in position 15 was 0.81±0.31mm, 1.41±0.37mm, and in position 16 was 0.67±0.31mm, 1.07±0.32mm.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

buccal-palatal deviation is higher using static CAIS, and mesial-distal deviation is higher in dynamic CAIS. In position 15, mesial-distal deviation at the apex and the platform were lower in static approaches than in dynamic ones. In implant position 16, buccal-palatal deviation at the apex was lower in the dynamic group than with static ones.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

for bi-directional analysis, buccal-palatal deviation at the platform (P=0.0028) and mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P=0.0056) were significantly lower in molar sites using static CAIS. Mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P=0.0246) revealed significantly lower values in position 16 following dynamic CAIS.

CONCLUSIONS

Both static and dynamic CAIS resulted in accurate implant placement. However, dynamic CAIS exhibited higher deviation in the mesial direction in an in-vitro setting. In addition, the implant site affects the accuracy of both CAIS approaches.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Static CAIS demonstrates the highest accuracy for guided implant placement today.

Comparison of the accuracy of immediate implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant system in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: a prospective study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of fully guided between dynamic and static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone.

METHODS

A total of 40 qualified patients requiring immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone were randomly and equally assigned to either static CAIS group (n = 20) or dynamic CAIS groups (n = 20). Global deviations at entry, apex, and angular deviation between placed and planned implant position were measured and compared as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were the deviation of implant placement at mesial-distal, labial-palatal, and coronal-apical directions.

RESULTS

For the immediate implant placement, the mean global entry deviations in static and dynamic CAIS groups were 0.99 ± 0.63 mm and 1.06 ± 0.55 mm (p = 0.659), while the mean global apex deviations were 1.50 ± 0.75 mm and 1.18 ± 0.53 mm (p = 0.231), respectively. The angular deviation in the static and dynamic CAIS group was 3.07 ± 2.18 degrees and 3.23 ± 1.67 degrees (p = 0.547). No significant differences were observed for the accuracy parameters of immediate implant placement between static and dynamic CAIS systems, except the deviation of the implant at entry in the labial-palatal direction in the dynamic CAIS group was significantly more labial than of the static CAIS (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that clinically acceptable accuracy of immediate implant placement could be achieved using static and dynamic CAIS systems. Trial registration ChiCTR, ChiCTR2200056321. Registered 3 February 2022, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=151348.