Accuracy of a Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation System in the Placement of Zygomatic Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Using Task-Autonomous Robotic System or Dynamic Navigation: An In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the accuracy of task-autonomous robot-assisted implant surgery (RAIS) and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) for zygomatic implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten atrophic edentulous maxilla models requiring zygomatic implant (ZI) placement were randomly divided into the RAIS and dCAIS groups. Osteotomies and implant placement were performed under the guidance of a task-autonomous robotic system or dynamic navigation system. A total of 20 ZIs were analyzed. The angular, coronal, lateral coronal, coronal depth, apical, lateral apical, and apical depth deviations were measured and analyzed between the two groups. The primary outcome parameters were the angular deviations between the planned and the placed ZIs. Data was subjected to descriptive and comparative statistical analysis. The significance of inter-group differences for continuous variables was assessed with Student's two-sample t-tests, Welch two-sample t-tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests according to the distribution normality and variance homogeneity.

RESULTS

ZI placement deviations were compared between the RAIS and dCAIS groups, showing a mean angular deviation of 0.92 ± 0.40° versus 2.03 ± 0.53° (p < 0.001), a mean (±SD) coronal deviation of 0.48 ± 0.25 mm versus 1.29 ± 0.46 mm (p < 0.001), and a mean apical deviation of 0.88 ± 0.28 mm versus 1.96 ± 0.46 mm (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For computer-guided ZI placement, task-autonomous RAIS was superior to dCAIS in terms of accuracy.

Accuracy of augmented reality navigated surgery for placement of zygomatic implants: a human cadaver study

Purpose

Placement of zygomatic implants in the most optimal prosthetic position is considered challenging due to limited bone mass of the zygoma, limited visibility, length of the drilling path and proximity to critical anatomical structures. Augmented reality (AR) navigation can eliminate some of the disadvantages of surgical guides and conventional surgical navigation, while potentially improving accuracy. In this human cadaver study, we evaluated a developed AR navigation approach for placement of zygomatic implants after total maxillectomy.

Methods

The developed AR navigation interface connects a commercial navigation system with the Microsoft HoloLens. AR navigated surgery was performed to place 20 zygomatic implants using five human cadaver skulls after total maxillectomy. To determine accuracy, postoperative scans were virtually matched with preoperative three-dimensional virtual surgical planning, and distances in mm from entry-exit points and angular deviations were calculated as outcome measures. Results were compared with a previously conducted study in which zygomatic implants were positioned with 3D printed surgical guides.

Results

The mean entry point deviation was 2.43 ± 1.33 mm and a 3D angle deviation of 5.80 ± 4.12° (range 1.39-19.16°). The mean exit point deviation was 3.28 mm (±2.17). The abutment height deviation was on average 2.20 ± 1.35 mm. The accuracy of the abutment in the occlusal plane was 4.13 ± 2.53 mm. Surgical guides perform significantly better for the entry-point (P = 0.012) and 3D angle (P = 0.05); however, there is no significant difference in accuracy for the exit-point (P = 0.143) when using 3D printed drill guides or AR navigated surgery.

Conclusion

Despite the higher precision of surgical guides, AR navigation demonstrated acceptable accuracy, with potential for improvement and specialized applications. The study highlights the feasibility of AR navigation for zygomatic implant placement, offering an alternative to conventional methods.

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.

Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation and Free Hand Methods During Zygomatic Implant Placement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

To assess and compare the precision and predictability of zygomatic implants in atrophic maxilla using conventional and dynamic navigation methods. This study was a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in patients requiring zygomatic implant placements in the atrophic maxilla. Forty zygomatic implants were placed in systemically healthy individuals. Zygomatic implant placement was done using the freehand technique in the control group, and the test group involved implant placement using a dynamic navigation system, and the entry, apex, and angular deviations were evaluated. The mean deviations at the site of entry (2D) in the navigation system (2.531.42) as compared with the freehand (4.151.29) were statistically significant. The variation in the freehand group was greater than the navigation method at the apex (3D) (P < .05). The navigation method had a higher accuracy in angular deviation than the freehand method (4.02 ± 1.80 and 12.67 ± 2.11). Also, the accuracy was checked on the right and left sides in both the conventional and dynamic groups. The dynamic navigation technology had better predictability in terms of accuracy and precision, and it is the need of the hour for clinicians to master this technology and thereby aid in better prognostic level of implant placements.

Learning curve of dynamic navigation-assisted zygomatic implant surgery: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (dCAZIS) has been reported to provide clinical efficacy with high accuracy and low risk of complications. However, the learning curve before performing dCAZIS effectively is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to explore the learning curve of dCAZIS in dentists with different levels of experience in implant dentistry and navigation surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six senior dental students were randomly divided into 3 groups for initial training (FH-CI group: pretraining on freehand conventional implant surgery; FH-ZI group: pretraining on freehand ZI surgery; DN-CI group: pretraining on conventional implant surgery under dynamic navigation). Then, every operator conducted 6 repeated dCAZIS training sessions on edentulous 3-dimensional (3D) printed skull models and was asked to complete a self-report questionnaire after each training session. A total of 36 postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans with 144 ZI osteotomy site preparations were obtained and superimposed over the preoperative design for accuracy measurements. The operation time, 3D deviations, and results of the self-reports were recorded. Comparisons among groups were analyzed with independent-sample Kruskal-Wallis tests (α=.05), and correlations between study outcomes and the number of practices were calculated.

RESULTS

Operator experience and increased practice times did not significantly affect the accuracy of dCAZIS (P>.05). However, the operation time varied among groups (P<.001), and significantly shortened with more practice, reaching 11.51 ±1.68 minutes at the fifth attempt in the FH-CI group (P<.001 compared with the first practice), 14.48 ±3.07 minutes at the third attempt in the FH-ZI group (P=.038), and 8.68 ±0.58 minutes at the sixth attempt in the DN-CI group (P<.001). All groups reached their own learning curve plateau stage within 6 practice sessions. As the number of practice sessions increased, the results from the self-report questionnaires gradually improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Among dentists with different levels of experience in implant dentistry and navigation surgery, dCAZIS was found to have a learning curve with respect to operation time but not implant accuracy. Experience in ZI surgery had little impact on the learning curve of dCAZIS, but experience in navigation surgery was a key factor.

A hybrid robotic system for zygomatic implant placement based on mixed reality navigation

BACKGROUNDS

Zygomatic implant (ZI) placement surgery is a viable surgical option for patients with severe maxillary atrophy and insufficient residual maxillary bone. Still, it is difficult and risky due to the long path of ZI placement and the narrow field of vision. Dynamic navigation is a superior solution, but it presents challenges such as requiring operators to have advanced skills and experience. Moreover, the precision and stability of manual implantation remain inadequate. These issues are anticipated to be addressed by implementing robot-assisted surgery and achieved by introducing a mixed reality (MR) navigation-guided hybrid robotic system for ZI placement surgery.

METHODS

This study utilized a hybrid robotic system to perform the ZI placement surgery. Our first step was to reconstruct a virtual 3D model from preoperative cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. We proposed a series of algorithms based on coordinate transformation, which includes image-phantom registration, HoloLens-tracker registration, drill-phantom calibration, and robot-implant calibration, to unify all objects within the same coordinate system. These algorithms enable real-time tracking of the surgical drill's position and orientation relative to the patient phantom. Subsequently, the surgical drill is directed to the entry position, and the planned implantation paths are superimposed on the patient phantom using HoloLens 2 for visualization. Finally, the hybrid robot system performs the processed of drilling, expansion, and placement of ZIs under the guidance of the MR navigation system.

RESULTS

Phantom experiments of ZI placement were conducted using 10 patient phantoms, with a total of 40 ZIs inserted. Out of these, 20 were manually implanted, and the remaining 20 were robotically implanted. Comparisons between the actual implanted ZI paths and the preoperatively planned ZI paths showed that our MR navigation-guided hybrid robotic system achieved a coronal deviation of 0.887 ± 0.213 mm, an apical deviation of 1.201 ± 0.318 mm, and an angular deviation of 3.468 ± 0.339° This demonstrates significantly better accuracy and stability than manual implantation.

CONCLUSION

Our proposed hybrid robotic system enables automated ZI placement surgery guided by MR navigation, achieving greater accuracy and stability compared to manual operations in phantom experiments. Furthermore, this system is expected to apply to animal and cadaveric experiments, to get a good ready for clinical studies.

Clinical efficacy of computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery: A systematic scoping review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital technology can improve the success of zygomatic implant (ZI) surgery. However, the reliability and efficacy of computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (CAZIS) need further analysis.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the placement accuracy, implant survival, and complications of CAZIS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of English and Mandarin Chinese publications up to May 2023 was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Wanfang database. The nonpeer-reviewed literature was searched in the trial register (clinicaltrials.gov). Clinical studies and cadaver studies on CAZIS were included. After data extraction and collection, the findings were critically reviewed, analyzed, interpreted, and discussed.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. After excluding publications with duplicate data, retaining the most recent, 28 articles were included in this scoping review. Of these, 18 were on static computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (sCAZIS), 8 on dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (dCAZIS), and 2 on robot-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (rAZIS). Excluding the outliers, the mean deviations of ZIs in the sCAZIS group (with 8 articles reporting implant placement accuracy, 183 ZIs involved) were: 1.15 ±1.37 mm (coronal deviation), 2.29 ±1.95 mm (apical deviation), and 3.32 ±3.36 degrees (angular deviation). The mean deviations of dCAZIS (3 articles, 251 ZIs) were: 1.60 ±0.74 mm (coronal), 2.27 ±1.05 mm (apical), and 2.89 ±1.69 degrees (angular). The mean deviations of rAZIS (2 articles, 5 ZIs) were: 0.82 ±0.21 mm (coronal), 1.25 ±0.52 mm (apical), and 1.46 ±0.35 degrees (angular). Among the CAZIS reported in the literature, the implant survival rate was high (96.3% for sCAZIS, 98.2% for dCAZIS, and 100% for rAZIS, specified in 14 of 21 clinical studies). The incidence of complications was low, but, because of the few relevant studies (4/21 specified), valid conclusions regarding complications could not be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

CAZIS has demonstrated clinical efficacy with high implant survival rates and placement accuracy. Of the 3 guided approaches, rAZIS showed the smallest 3-dimensional deviation.

The Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Assisted by Dynamic Computer-Aided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The present systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of zygomatic implant (ZI) placement using dynamic computer-aided surgery (d-CAIS), static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), and a free-hand approach in patients with severe atrophic edentulous maxilla and/or deficient maxilla.

METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches until May 2023 were performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Clinical trials and cadaver studies were selected. The primary outcome was planned/placed deviation. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the survival of ZI and surgical complications. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and meta-regression was utilized to compare fiducial registration amounts for d-CAIS and the different designs of s-CAIS.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies with 511 ZIs were included (Nobel Biocare: 274, Southern Implant: 42, SIN Implant: 16, non-mentioned: 179). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the d-CAIS group were 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.34-2.29) at the entry point and 2.95 mm (95% CI: 1.66-4.24) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 3.49 degrees (95% CI: 2.04-4.93). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the s-CAIS group were 1.19 mm (95% CI: 0.83-1.54) at the entry point and 1.80 mm (95% CI: 1.10-2.50) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 2.15 degrees (95% CI: 1.43-2.88). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the free-hand group were 2.04 mm (95% CI: 1.69-2.39) at the entry point and 3.23 mm (95% CI: 2.34-4.12) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 4.92 degrees (95% CI: 3.86-5.98). There was strong evidence of differences in the average entry, apex, and angular deviation between the navigation, surgical guide, and free-hand groups (p < 0.01). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the number of fiducial screws and the planned/placed deviation regarding entry, apex, and angular measurements.

CONCLUSION

Using d-CAIS and modified s-CAIS for ZI surgery has shown clinically acceptable outcomes regarding average entry, apex, and angular deviations. The maximal deviation values were predominantly observed in the conventional s-CAIS. Surgeons should be mindful of potential deviations and complications regardless of the decision making in different guide approaches.

Accuracy of computer-aided static and dynamic navigation systems in the placement of zygomatic dental implants

BACKGROUND

Zygomatic implants are widely used in the rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae, but implant placement is not without risks, and it can potentially cause damage to related anatomical structures. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of the accuracy of static navigation systems in placing zygomatic dental implants in comparison to dynamic navigation systems.

METHODS

Sixty zygomatic dental implants were randomly allocated to one of three study groups, categorized by which implant placement strategy was used: A: computer-aided static navigation system (n = 20) (GI); B: computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 20) (NI); or C: free-hand technique (n = 20) (FHI). For the computer-aided study groups, a preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of the existing situation was performed in order to plan the approach to be used during surgery. Four zygomatic dental implants were inserted in each of fifteen polyurethane stereolithographic models (n = 15), with a postoperative CBCT scan taken after the intervention. The pre- and postoperative CBCT scans were then uploaded to a software program used in dental implantology to analyze the angular deviations, apical end point, and coronal entry point. Student's t-test was used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

The results found statistically significant differences in apical end-point deviations between the FHI and NI (p = 0.0053) and FHI and GI (p = 0.0004) groups. There were also statistically significant differences between the angular deviations of the FHI and GI groups (p = 0.0043).

CONCLUSIONS

The manual free-hand technique may enable more accurate placement of zygomatic dental implants than computer-assisted surgical techniques due to the different learning curves required for each zygomatic dental implant placement techniques.

Dynamic navigation for zygomatic implant placement: A randomized clinical study comparing the flapless versus the conventional approach

OBJECTIVES

The assessment of the accuracy of flapless placement of zygomatic implants in edentulous maxilla using dynamic navigation.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was carried out on 20 patients. Patients were randomized into two groups, the flapless (Group 1; n=10) and the conventional (Group 2; n=10). In each case two zygomatic implants were inserted under local anaesthesia, one on the right and one on the left side guided by a dynamic navigation system. The surgical procedure was identical in the two groups except for the reflection of the mucoperiosteal flap which was eliminated in the flapless cases. Postoperative CBCT scans were used to assess the accuracy of the placement of zygomatic implants.

RESULTS

Osseointegration was achieved for all the implants, except one case in the flapless group. Statistically significant differences in the accuracy of the position of the zygomatic implants was found between the flapless and the conventional groups, measured at the apex and the entry points of the implants (p < 0.01). The average apical and coronal deviations were 5 mm and 3 mm, respectively; the angular deviation was 6°, and 2 mm vertical apical disparity was detected between the planned and the achieved surgical position. Perforation of the Schneiderian membrane was noted in three cases, one in flapless group and two in the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

Flapless placement of zygomatic implants guided by dynamic navigation offered satisfactory safety and accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first clinical trial to prove the feasibility and accuracy of flapless placement of zygomatic implant with minimal morbidity. The study highlights the innovative reflection of the Schneiderian membrane under guided surgical navigation. The procedure can be performed under local anaesthesia, which offers clinical advantages. Adequate training on the use of dynamic navigation is mandatory before its use in clinical cases.