Accuracy of Implant Placement with a Navigation System, a Laboratory Guide, and Freehand Drilling

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.

Effect of implant shape and length on the accuracy of robot-assisted immediate implant surgery: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy of immediate implant placement of cylindrical implants (CI) and tapered implants (TI) of different lengths using a robotic dental implant system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CI and TI of three lengths (8, 10, and 12 mm) each were digitally planned and placed in a three-dimensional printed extraction socket model under robotic guidance. There were six groups with three samples in each group, resulting in a total of 18 samples. Implant angular deviation, platform point deviation (total, lateral, depth), and implant apical point deviation (total, lateral, depth) were recorded and compared between the different groups.

RESULTS

The angular deviations for CI 8 mm, CI 10 mm, CI 12 mm, TI 8 mm, TI 10 mm, and TI 12 mm were 1.32° ± 0.19°, 1.03° ± 0.56°, 1.31° ± 0.38°, 1.27° ± 0.64°, 1.10° ± 0.43° and 1.05° ± 0.45°, respectively. The total deviations of platform and apical points for CI 8 mm, CI 10 mm, CI 12 mm, TI 8 mm, TI 10 mm, and TI 12 mm were 0.79 ± 0.18 mm, 0.77 ± 0.33 mm; 0.64 ± 0.21 mm, 0.55 ± 0.17 mm; 0.64 ± 0.37 mm, 0.65 ± 0.34 mm; 0.68 ± 0.26 mm, 0.71 ± 0.20 mm; 0.70 ± 0.12 mm, 0.66 ± 0.23 mm; and 0.71 ± 0.15 mm, 0.77 ± 0.29 mm, respectively, and had no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, acceptable accuracy can be achieved for both TI and CI using robotic systems. Our study demonstrated that the implant shape and length did not affect the accuracy of immediate implant placement under robotic guidance in vitro. However, further trials are required to confirm their efficacy in clinical practice.

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

Background

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

Case presentation

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

Conclusion

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

Impact of 3D imaging techniques and virtual patients on the accuracy of planning and surgical placement of dental implants: A systematic review

Aim

The integration of advanced technologies, including three-dimensional (3D) imaging modalities and virtual simulations, has significantly influenced contemporary approaches to preoperative planning in implant dentistry. Through a meticulous analysis of relevant studies, this review synthesizes findings related to accuracy outcomes in implant placement facilitated by 3D imaging in virtual patients.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across relevant databases to identify relevant studies published to date. The inclusion criteria were studies utilizing 3D imaging techniques, virtual patients, and those focusing on the accuracy of dental implant planning and surgical placement. The selected studies were critically appraised for their methodological quality.

Results

After a rigorous analysis, 21 relevant articles were included out of 3021 articles. This study demonstrates the versatility and applicability of these technologies in both in vitro and in vivo settings. Integrating Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM), cone bean computed tomography (CBCT), and advanced 3D reconstruction methodologies showcases a trend toward enhanced precision in implant planning and placement. Notably, the evaluation parameters varied, encompassing distances, discrepancies, and deviations in the implant placement. The ongoing integration of systems such as dynamic navigation systems, augmented reality, and sophisticated software platforms shows a promising trajectory for the continued refinement of virtual reality applications in dental implantology, providing valuable insights for future research and clinical implementation. Moreover, using stereolithographic surgical guides, virtual planning with CBCT data, and 3D-printed templates consistently demonstrates enhanced precision in dental implant placement compared to traditional methods.

Conclusion

The synthesis of the available evidence underscores the substantial positive impact of 3D imaging techniques and virtual patients on dental implant planning and surgical placement accuracy. Utilizing these technologies contributes to a more personalized and precise approach that enhances overall treatment outcomes. Future research directions and potential refinements to the application of these technologies in clinical practice should be discussed.

Clinical accuracy of partially guided implant placement in edentulous patients: A computed tomography-based retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study was intended to evaluate the clinical accuracy of partially guided template in guiding implant placement in edentulous patients.

METHODS

A total of 120 implants were placed in 24 patients with at least one completely edentulous arch with a partially guided system. Based on CBCT data, a repeatable method was used to measure linear and angular deviations of implants at 3D level in Mimics medical software. The influence of supporting tissue and implant region on the accuracy was assessed, followed by the evaluation of direction of linear deviations in biologically vital areas.

RESULTS

Linear deviations of all implants were 1.91 ± 0.68 mm, 1.47 ± 0.68 mm, and 1.02 ± 0.69 mm at apical, apical lateral, and apical vertical levels. When at the cervical, cervical lateral, and cervical vertical levels, the linear deviations were 1.53 ± 0.65 mm, 0.98 ± 0.53 mm, and 1.01 ± 0.69 mm, respectively. Angular deviation of all implants was 7.14 ± 3.41°. Implants guided by mucosa + tooth-supported templates showed higher linear deviations at apical vertical level (1.21 ± 0.72 mm vs. 0.86 ± 0.63 mm, p < .05) and cervical vertical level (1.18 ± 0.72 mm vs. 0.87 ± 0.63 mm, p < .05) than mucosa-supported templates, and implants in maxilla were found higher angular deviation than mandible (7.89 ± 3.61° vs. 6.29 ± 2.97°, p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The partially guided template served as clinically viable surgical assistance in implant placement in edentulous patients. When using mucosa + tooth-supported template or placing implants in maxilla, more caution was required, especially in biologically vital areas.

Influence of Kennedy class and number of implants on the accuracy of dynamic implant navigation: An in vitro study using an X-ray free evaluation methodology

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of fully guided dynamic implant navigation surgery in Kennedy I, II, and III class dental arch defects with two different implant designs, using an X-ray free evaluation method.

METHODS

Polyurethane resin maxillary models simulated posterior edentulous defects. Four cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and four intraoral (IOS) scans were obtained for each model and a digital wax-up with the correct implant positions was made. The accuracy of implant positions was evaluated using an IOS-based X-ray-free method (3Shape). Four deviation characteristics were evaluated: insertion point, depth deviation, horizontal and angle deviation.

RESULTS

The insertion point deviation measures ranged from 0.19 mm to 1.71 mm. Depth (s) and (u) deviations ranged from -1.47 mm to 0.74 mm and from 0.02 mm to 1.47 mm, respectively. Horizontal deviation ranged from 0.09 mm to 1.37 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a tendency of a decreasing insertion point deviation for an increasing number and distribution area of the teeth (increasing Kennedy class number). Kennedy class II and distal implant position had the most influence for the higher deviations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dynamic implant guidance provides accurate spacing, angulation, depth and position of the implants. It is important to understand how the number of missing teeth and implant design could influence the accuracy of dynamic implant navigation. Thus, it is important to evaluate factors influencing the accuracy of dynamic systems by using a X-ray-free post-operative method and to overcome the limitations of providing multiple CBCT scans.

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.

Analysis of the accuracy of a dynamic navigation system when performing dental implant surgery with transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A pilot study

Background/purpose

The success of transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) is primarily reliant upon the experience of the surgeon owing to the limited operative visibility. To evaluate the accuracy associated with the use of a dynamic navigation system when conducting posterior maxilla implant surgery with TSFE.

Materials and methods

Twenty-eight implants were placed in 28 patients requiring implantation in the posterior maxilla via a TSFE approach. The drills were used to access the planned position (within 1 mm of the bottom of the maxillary sinus floor) under dynamic navigation system. TSFE was then accomplished using osteotomes and a piezoelectric device. Lastly, the implant was inserted under the dynamic navigation. Three effective deviations between planned and actual implant placement were then measured including angular deviation (AD, degrees), entry point horizontal deviation (EPHD, mm), and apical point horizontal deviation (APHD, mm).

Results

The AD, EPHD, and APHD between the planned and actual implant placement were 3.656 ± 1.665°, 1.073 ± 0.686 mm, and 1.086 ± 0.667 mm, respectively. Premolar site AD values were less than those for molar sites (P = 0.004). No significant differences in these outcomes were observed in different surgeons. Obvious sinus perforation was not detected by immediate postoperative cone beam computed tomography imaging.

Conclusion

The accuracy associated with using a dynamic navigation system when conducting posterior maxilla implant surgery via a TSFE approach using piezoelectric devices was comparable. This technique thus achieved appropriate interventional precision and safety while decreasing the morbidity associated with the TSFE approach.

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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative accuracy of manual (U-shaped tube) and automatic (two-in-one) dynamic navigation registration techniques for implant surgery performed in posterior sites missing one tooth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 58 partially edentulous patients with 58 implants, including 31 and 27 in the manual and automatic groups. Deviations between the planned and actual implant placement were assessed.

RESULTS

The angular deviation in the overall study cohort was 2.54 ± 1.21°, while the 3D deviations at the implant platform and apex were 0.90 ± 0.46 mm and 1.04 ± 0.47 mm, respectively. The respective angular deviations in the manual and automatic groups were 2.82 ± 1.17° and 2.21 ± 1.19° (p > .05), while platform deviations were 0.89 ± 0.48 mm and 0.91 ± 0.45 mm (p > .05), and apex deviations were 0.99 ± 0.48 mm and 1.11 ± 0.46 mm (p > .05). No significant differences in absolute buccolingual, mesiodistal, or apicocoronal deviations were detected between these groups at either level (p > .05) nor were did deviation distributions differ in the buccolingual, mesiodistal, or apicocoronal directions at the platform or apex levels (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and automatic dynamic navigation registration techniques can achieve excellent accuracy when placing implants in posterior sites missing a single tooth. The two-in-one automatic registration technique can reduce the amount of time and intraoperative steps necessary to complete the registration process relative to the manual U-shaped tube registration technique. Further follow-up studies are necessary to expand on these results.

Performance of novice versus experienced surgeons for dental implant placement with freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches

Lack of evidence exists related to the investigation of the accuracy and efficacy of novice versus experienced practitioners for dental implant placement. Hence, the following in vitro study was conducted to assess the accuracy of implant positioning and self-efficacy of novice compared to experienced surgeons for placing implant using freehand (FH), pilot drill-based partial guidance (PPG) and dynamic navigation (DN) approaches. The findings revealed that DN significantly improved the angular accuracy of implant placement compared with FH (P < 0.001) and PPG approaches (P < 0.001). The time required with DN was significantly longer than FH and PPG (P < 0.001), however, it was similar for both novice and experienced practitioners. The surgeon's self-confidence questionnaire suggested that novice practitioners scored higher with both guided approaches, whereas experienced practitioners achieved higher scoring with PPG and FH compared to DN. In conclusion, implant placement executed under the guidance of DN showed high accuracy irrespective of the practitioner's experience. The application of DN could be regarded as a beneficial tool for novices who offered high confidence of using the navigation system with the same level of accuracy and surgical time as that of experienced practitioners.

Clinical study of dynamic real-time navigation assisted immediate implant without flapping in the esthetic zone

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical effect of Dynamic real-time navigation to assist immediate implant without flapping in the esthetic zone.

METHODS

Eight patients who underwent immediate implantation in the aesthetic area were included. A total of 11 implants were implanted using dynamic real-time navigation system combined with non-flap technology. Clinical indicators including implant deviation, initial stability, alveolar bone absorption, implant success rate, pink esthetic score (PES), Papilla index score (PIS), and the thickness of labial side bone plate of the implant were recorded.

RESULTS

The deviation between the actual implant position and the preoperative design was (0.76±0.08) mm at the top, (1.11±0.18) mm at the root, (0.90±0.16) mm at the depth, and (1.48±0.91)°at the Angle. ISO values of all implants were greater than 59. PES was greater than 8. PIS index was 2 or 3. The average alveolar bone absorption was (0.34±0.09) mm and the thickness of bone plate on the lip of implant was greater than 1.6 mm. The success rate of implantation was 100%.

CONCLUSION

The use of dynamic real-time navigation assisted non-flap implantation in the aesthetic area can effectively reduce implant deviation and improve the aesthetic effect.

Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study

Purpose: To compare the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods in the use of dental implant placement, and to assess the influence of the location of missing teeth on these registrations. Methods: 32 resin mandible models and 64 implants were utilized, with implants being placed using one of the two registration methods selected at random. Accuracy was measured through the superimposition of the final and planned implant positions. Angular deviation, 3D entry deviation, and 3D apex deviation were analyzed. Results: The overall mean 3D deviation was 1.089 ± 0.515 mm at the entry point and 1.174 ± 0.531 mm at the apex point, and mean angular deviation was 1.970 ± 1.042 degrees. No significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed when comparing these two registration methods. However, the U-tube method showed significant difference when assessing the location of missing teeth (without distal-extension absence and distal-extension absence), whereas cusp registration was unaffected. Conclusions: Both the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods are accurate when implemented in vitro. Besides, the cusp registration technique can also overcome several of the limitations of the U-tube approach and the accuracy of it was not influenced by the location of the missing teeth, highlighting it as a method worthy of further clinical research.

Clinical Advantages of Immediate Posterior Implants With Custom Healing Abutments: Up to 8-Year Follow-Up of 115 Cases

PURPOSE

Proper management of the soft tissues around dental implants is crucial to their long-term function and esthetics. The purpose of this article is to report the survival rate of immediate posterior implants when using an immediate chair-side technique for custom healing abutments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The investigator implemented a retrospective case series analysis of a sample of 115 consecutive patients with 1 posterior dental implant placed between February 1, 2012 and December 9, 2014, in the author's private practice who underwent the previously published technique for immediate custom chair-side healing abutment fabrication. In this descriptive analysis, the primary outcome variable was implant survival. Other variables included patient gender and age.

RESULTS

Of the 115 patients in this cohort, 66 were female and 49 were male, with a mean age of 58 years, with 73% of the sites being first molars and 27% second molars. This study sample had a 98.26% overall implant survival rate with 3 implant failures. Median follow-up time was 1 year with identical 1-year and 5-year survival rates. Follow-up at up to 8 years demonstrated a 98.26% overall survival rate with 100% survival in the maxilla and 96.08% in the mandible.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series demonstrates that the Anatomic Harmony Abutment technique, by applying principles of flapless posterior immediate implant surgery with immediate custom healing abutment placement, can lead to highly successful implant outcomes.

Influence of experience on dental implant placement: an in vitro comparison of freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the performance of novice versus experienced practitioners for placing dental implant using freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches.

Methods

A total of 72 implants were placed in 36 simulation models. Three experienced and three novice practitioners were recruited for performing the osteotomy and implant insertion with freehand, surgical guide (pilot-drill guidance) and navigation (X-Guide, X-Nav technologies) approaches. Each practitioner inserted 4 implants per approach randomly with a 1-week gap to avoid memory bias (4 insertion sites × 3 approaches × 6 practitioners = 72 implants). The performance of practitioners was assessed by comparing actual implant deviation to the planned position, time required for implant placement and questionnaire-based self-confidence evaluation of practitioners on a scale of 1–30.

Results

The navigation approach significantly improved angular deviation compared with freehand (P < 0.001) and surgical guide (P < 0.001) irrespective of the experience. Surgical time with navigation was significantly longer compared to the freehand approach (P < 0.001), where experienced practitioners performed significantly faster compared to novice practitioners (P < 0.001). Overall, self-confidence was higher in favor of novice practitioners with both guided approaches. In addition, the confidence of novice practitioners (median score = 26) was comparable to that of experienced practitioners (median score = 27) for placing implants with the navigation approach.

Conclusions

Dynamic navigation system could act as a viable tool for dental implant placement. Unlike freehand and static-guided approaches, novice practitioners showed comparable accuracy and self-confidence to that of experienced practitioners with the navigation approach.

Graphical Abstract

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

Background

Nowadays, 3D planning and static for dynamic aids play an increasing role in oral rehabilitation of the masticatory apparatus with dental implants. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of implant placement using a 3D-printed drilling guide and an intraoral real-time dynamic navigation system.

Methods

A total of 60 implants were placed on 12 partially edentulous lower jaw models. 30 were placed with pilot drilling guides, the other half with dynamic navigation (DENACAM^®). In addition, implant placement in interdental gaps and free-end situations were investigated. Accuracy was assessed by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Results

Both systems achieved clinically acceptable results, yet more accurate results regarding the offset of implant base and tip in several spatial dimensions were achieved using drilling guides (each p < 0.05). With regard to angulation, real-time navigation was more precise (p = 0.0016). Its inaccuracy was 3°; the template-guided systems was 4.6°. Median horizontal deviation was 0.52 mm at base and 0.75 mm at tip using DENACAM^®. When using the pilot drill guide, horizontal deviation was 0.34 mm in the median and at the tip by 0.59 mm. Regarding angulation, it was found that the closer the drill hole was to the system's marker, the better navigation performed. The template did not show this trend (p = 0.0043; and p = 0.0022).

Conclusion

Considering the limitations of an in vitro study, dynamic navigation can be used be a tool for reliable and accurate implantation. However, further clinical studies need to follow in order to provide an evidence-based recommendation for use in vivo.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-022-00430-6.

Learning Curve and Comparison of Dynamic Implant Placement Accuracy Using a Navigation System in Young Professionals

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the learning curve and accuracy of implant placement by young professionals using a dynamic computer-assisted surgical system for dental implant placement. Ten students tried to place eight implants with a dynamic surgical system in predefined positions on two consecutive weekends, resulting in 160 implant placements in total. Postoperatively, the positions of the implants were scanned with an intraoral scanner and compared for deviations at the entry point, the apex, as well as angular deviations to the master model. The mean values of all measurements improved; statistical significance was found for the changes in the angle as well as for the position of the implants to the apex (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the young professionals indicated subjective improvement in handling the dynamic surgery system. Navigated surgical dental implant placement can be learned quickly and can support young professionals in everyday clinical practice, especially in difficult anatomic situations.

Accuracy of Endodontic Access Cavities Performed Using an Augmented Reality Appliance: An In Vitro Study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the accuracy of endodontic access cavities created using an augmented reality appliance to those performed using the conventional technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

60 single-rooted anterior teeth were chosen for study and randomly divided between two study groups: Group A-endodontic access cavities created using an augmented reality appliance as a guide (n = 30) (AR); and Group B-endodontic access cavities performed with the manual (freehand) technique (n = 30) (MN). A 3D implant planning software was used to plan the endodontic access cavities for the AR group, with a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D intraoral surface scan taken preoperatively and subsequently transferred to the augmented reality device. A second CBCT scan was taken after performing the endodontic access cavities to compare the planned and performed endodontic access for accuracy. Therapeutic planning software and Student's t-test were used to analyze the cavities at the apical, coronal, and angular levels. The repeatability and reproducibility of the digital measurement technique were analyzed using Gage R&R statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The paired t-test found statistically significant differences between the study groups at the coronal (p = 0.0029) and apical (p = 0.0063) levels; no statistically significant differences were found between the AR and MN groups at the angular (p = 0.6596) level.

CONCLUSIONS

Augmented reality devices enable the safer and more accurate performance of endodontic access cavities when compared with the conventional freehand technique.

Does machine-vision-assisted dynamic navigation improve the accuracy of digitally planned prosthetically guided immediate implant placement? A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to compare the accuracy of machine-vision (MV)-based dynamic navigation (DN)-assisted immediate implant placement with the conventional freehand technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 24 subjects requiring immediate implant placement in maxillary anterior teeth were randomly assigned to either the control (freehand by an experienced surgeon, n = 12) or the test group (MV-DN, n = 12). Implant platform, implant apex, angular, and depth deviations with respect to prosthetically guided digital planning and differences in implant insertion torque (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

MV-DN resulted in more accurate immediate implant position: significantly smaller global platform deviation (1.01 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.51 ± 0.67 mm, p = .038), platform depth deviation (0.44 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.95 ± 0.68 mm, p = .045), global apex deviation (0.88 ± 0.43 mm vs. 1.94 ± 0.86 mm, p = .001), and lateral apex deviation (0.68 ± 0.30 mm vs. 1.61 ± 0.88 mm, p = .004) were found in MV-DN compared to controls. No significant intergroup differences were observed for ITV and ISQ.

CONCLUSIONS

MV-DN achieved more precise immediate implant position and comparable primary stability. Further trials are necessary to assess the benefits in terms of esthetics and tissue health/stability.

Comparison of Implant Placement Accuracy in Healed and Fresh Extraction Sockets between Static and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery Navigation Systems: A Model-Based Evaluation

The aim of this model-base study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in a fresh extraction socket and healed ridge. A randomized in vitro study was conducted. Twenty 3D-printed maxillary models and 80 implants were used. One experienced researcher placed the implants using either the static navigation or dynamic navigation system. Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative CBCT on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were performed. In the fresh sockets, the mean deviation was 1.24 ± 0.26 mm (entry point), 1.69 ± 0.34 mm (apical point), and 3.44 ± 1.06° (angle discrepancy) in the static CAIS group, and 0.60 ± 0.29 mm, 0.78 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.47 ± 1.09° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. In the healed ridge, the mean deviation was 1.09 ± 0.17 mm and 1.40 ± 0.30 mm, and 2.12 ± 1.11° in the static CAIS group, and 0.80 ± 0.29 mm, 0.98 ± 0.37 mm, and 1.69 ± 0.76° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. Compared with the static CAIS system, the dynamic CAIS system resulted in significantly lower entry and apical errors in both fresh sockets and healed ridges. Differences in bone morphology therefore seem to have little effect on accuracy in the dynamic CAIS group.

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

The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of zygomatic dental implant (ZI) placement carried out using a dynamic navigation system. Materials and Methods: Forty (40) ZIs were randomly distributed into one of two study groups: (A) ZI placement via a computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 20) (navigation implant (NI)); and (B) ZI placement using a conventional free-hand technique (n = 20) (free-hand implant (FHI)). A cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of the existing situation was performed preoperatively to plan the surgical approach for the computer-aided study group. Four zygomatic dental implants were placed in anatomically based polyurethane models (n = 10) manufactured by stereolithography, and a postoperative CBCT scan was performed. Subsequently, the preoperative planning and postoperative CBCT scans were added to dental implant software to analyze the coronal entry point, apical end point, and angular deviations. Results were analyzed using the Student’s t-test. Results: The results showed statistically significant differences in the apical end-point deviations between FHI and NI (p = 0.0018); however, no statistically significant differences were shown in the coronal entry point (p = 0.2617) or in the angular deviations (p = 0.3132). Furthermore, ZIs placed in the posterior region showed more deviations than the anterior region at the coronal entry point, apical end point, and angular level. Conclusions: The conventional free-hand technique enabled more accurate placement of ZIs than the computer-assisted surgical technique. In addition, placement of ZIs in the anterior region was more accurate than that in the posterior region.

Present status and future directions - Minimal endodontic access cavities

In the last decades, the move of Medicine towards minimally invasive treatments is notorious and scientifically grounded. As Dentistry naturally follows its footsteps, minimal access preparation also became a trend topic in the endodontic field. This procedure aims to maximize preservation of dentine tissue, backed up by the idea that this is an effective way to reduce the incidence of post-treatment tooth fracture. However, with the assessment of the body of evidence on this topic, it is possible to observe some key-points (a) the demand for nomenclature standardization, (b) the requirement of specific tools such as ultra-flexible instruments, visual magnification, superior illumination, and three-dimensional imaging technology, (c) minimally invasive treatment does not seem to affect orifice location and mechanical preparation when using adequate armamentarium, but it (d) may impair adequate canal cleaning, disinfection, and filling procedures, and also (e) it displays contradictory results regarding the ability to increase the tooth strengthen compared to the traditional access cavity. In spite of that, it is undeniable that methodological flaws of some benchtop studies using extracted teeth may be responsible for the conflicting data, thus triggering the need for more sophisticated devices/facilities and specifically designed research in an attempt to make it clear the role of the access size/design on long-term teeth survival. Moreover, it is inevitable that a clinical approach like minimal endodontic access cavities that demands complex tools and skilled and experienced operators bring to the fore doubts on its educational impact mainly when confronted with the conflicting scientific output, ultimately provoking a cost-benefit analysis of its implementation as a routine technique. In addition, this review discusses the ongoing scientific and clinical status of minimally invasive access cavities aiming to input an in-depth and unbiased view over the rationale behind them, uncovering not only the related conceptual and scientific flaws, but also outlining future directions for research and clinical practices. The conclusions attempt to skip from passionate disputes highlighting the current body of evidence as weak and incomplete to guide decision making, demanding the development of a close-to-in-situ laboratory model or a large and well-controlled clinical trial to solve this matter.

Accuracy and primary stability of tapered or straight implants placed into fresh extraction socket using dynamic navigation: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy and primary stability of tapered and straight implants undergoing immediate implant placement with dynamic navigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with compromised anterior teeth in maxilla were recruited and allocated randomly into (1) tapered implant group (TI group) and (2) straight implant group (SI group). Implants were inserted into fresh sockets with dynamic navigation. Three-dimensional platform deviation, apex deviation, angular deviation, insertion torque value (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with 20 implants were included. The overall platform, apex, and angular deviation were 0.87 ± 0.35 mm, 0.81 ± 0.34 mm, and 2.40 ± 1.31°, respectively. The accuracy was 0.86 ± 0.26 mm, 0.76 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.49 ± 1.54° for TI, and 0.89 ± 0.44 mm, 0.88 ± 0.36 mm, and 2.31 ± 1.01° for SI, with no significant difference (p = 0.85, 0.45, 0.76). Sagittal root position classification (SRP) class I may obtain greater error in numerical values in straight implants (0.97 ± 0.47 mm vs. 0.6 ± 0.16 mm, 0.92 ± 0.36 mm vs. 0.73 ± 0.36 mm, 2.48 ± 1.19° vs. 1.71 ± 0.14°). The overall ISQ was 60.74. ISQ was 60.48 for TI and 60.96 for SI, with no significant difference. Acceptable ITV (> 15 Ncm) was achieved in most of the included patients (SI 7/10, TI 9/10).

CONCLUSIONS

High accuracy and primary stability of immediate implant placement could be achieved both in tapered and straight implants with dynamic navigation systems.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Tapered and straight implants did not reach a consensus on which was better in immediate implant regarding to accuracy and primary stability. Our study demonstrated implant macrodesign did not affect accuracy and primary stability in immediate implant using dynamic navigation.

Accuracy of intentionally tilted implant placement in the maxilla using dynamic navigation: a retrospective clinical analysis

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the accuracy of dynamic navigation for the placement of intentionally tilted implants in the posterior maxilla. The study included 12 patients with edentulism or continuous multiple tooth loss, who had 48 implants inserted under dynamic navigation guidance in the posterior maxilla. Twenty-four implants near maxillary sinuses were intentionally tilted. The average platform deviation was 1.3 ± 0.4 mm (range 0.8-2.3 mm), apex deviation was 1.1 ± 0.5 mm (range 0.2-2.3 mm), and axis deviation was 3.1 ± 1.0° (range 1.8-6.7°). The other 24 implants were axially positioned. The average platform deviation was 1.5 ± 0.5 mm (range 0.7-3.1 mm), apex deviation was 1.3 ± 0.7 mm (range 0.5-3.1 mm), and axis deviation was 3.2 ± 1.5° (range 1.5-7.7°). There was no significant difference in platform deviation, apex deviation, or axis deviation between the tilted implants and implants in the axial position (P > 0.05). This analysis indicates that a dynamic navigation system can be used as a method of guidance to place intentionally tilted implants as accurately as axially positioned implants in the posterior maxilla, thereby preventing damage to the maxillary sinuses and the need to graft bone.

Survival Rate and Prosthetic and Sinus Complications of Zygomatic Dental Implants for the Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Zygomatic dental implants have been proposed as an alternative to atrophic total edentulous maxillae rehabilitation with the necessity of bone grafting procedures. However, surgical, prosthetic, and maxillary sinus complications have been associated with this surgical procedure. Therefore, it is necessary to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis that provides evidence associated with the prognosis when using zygomatic dental implants as an alternative to atrophic total edentulous maxillae rehabilitation.

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze and compare the survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. Four databases were consulted during the literature search: Pubmed–Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicate articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 46 articles were selected for the qualitative analysis and 32 for the quantitative analysis. Results: Four randomized controlled trials, 19 prospective clinical studies, 20 retrospective studies, and 3 case series were included in the meta-analysis. Conventional dental implants failure (n = 3549) were seen in 2.89% (IC-95% 1.83–3.96%), while zygomatic dental implants failure (n = 1895) were seen in 0.69% (IC-95% 0.21–1.16%). The measure of the effect size used was the Odds Ratio, which was estimated at 2.05 with a confidence interval of 95% between 1.22 and 3.44 (z test = 2.73; p-value = 0.006). The failure risk of conventional dental implants is 2.1 times higher than that of zygomatic dental implants. Slight heterogeneity was determined in the meta-analysis between 23 combined studies (Q test = 32.4; p-value = 0.070; I² = 32.1%). Prosthetic complications were recorded in 4.9% (IC-95% 2.7–7.3%) and mild heterogeneity was observed in a meta-analysis of 28 combined studies (Q test = 88.2; p-value = 0.001; I² = 69.4%). Sinus complications were seen in 4.7% (IC-95% 2.8–6.5%) and mild heterogeneity was observed in a meta-analysis of 32 combined studies (Q test = 75.3; p-value = 0.001; I² = 58.8%). Conclusions: The high survival rate and low prosthetic and sinus complications related to zygomatic dental implants suggest the use of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla.

Effect of repeated use of an implant handpiece on an output torque: An in-vitro study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of repeated use of an implant handpiece under an implant placement torque (35 Ncm) and overloading torque condition (50 Ncm) on an output torque.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two types of implant handpiece systems (Surgicpro/X-DSG20L [NSK, Kanuma, Japan] and SIP20/CRB46LN [SAESHIN, Daegu, South Korea]) were used. The output torque was measured using a digital torque gauge. The height and angle (x, y, and z axes) of the digital torque gauge and implant handpiece were adjusted through a jig for passive connection. The experiment was conducted under the setting torque value of 35 Ncm (implant placement torque) and 50 Ncm (overloading torque condition) and 30 times per set; a total of 5 sets were performed (N = 150). For statistical analysis, the difference between the groups was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Friedman test was used to confirm the change in output torque (α=.05).

RESULTS

NSK and SAESHIN implant handpieces showed significant differences in output torque results at the setting torques of 35 Ncm and 50 Ncm (P<.001). The type of implant handpiece and repeated use influenced the output torque (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

There may be a difference between the setting torque and actual output torque due to repeated use, and the implant handpiece should be managed and repaired during long-term use. In addition, for successful implant results in dental clinics, the output torque of the implant handpiece system should be checked before implant placement.

Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Freehand Implant Placement: A Prospective Clinical Study

(1) Background: The objective of implant prosthetic restoration is to ensure the best possible rehabilitation of function and esthetics. Optimal positioning of the implant with regard to the bone availability, surrounding soft tissue, and prosthetic sustainability should be strived for during implant placement. The factors influencing freehand implant placement and the accuracy achieved with this procedure are investigated in this prospective clinical study. (2) Methods: Implants were placed in the single-tooth edentulous sites of the premolar and molar areas in 52 patients. Three-dimensional (3D)-planning was performed virtually prior to the freehand implant operation, and the desired position of the implant was provided to the surgeon. (3) Results: The deviations between the planned and the actually achieved position with freehand implant placement showed the following mean values and standard deviations: angle 8.7 ± 4.8°, 3D deviation at the implant shoulder 1.62 ± 0.87 mm, mesiodistal deviation 0.87 ± 0.75 mm, buccolingual deviation 0.70 ± 0.66 mm, and apiocoronal deviation 0.95 ± 0.61 mm. The type of jaw had a significant influence on accuracy. Major deviations were observed in the lower jaw. Furthermore, the timing of implant placement influenced the mesiodistal deviation and angular deviation; (4) Conclusions: Freehand implant placement demonstrated a higher level of deviation between the planned and actually achieved implant positions. In particular, the ranges showed a large spread. From a prosthetic point of view, there may be complications during the restoration of the prosthetic crown if the implant exit point is not optimally located or if the implants show a high angular deviation.

Comparison of implant placement accuracy in two different preoperative digital workflows: navigated vs. pilot-drill-guided surgery

Background

The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows.

Methods

A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model.

Results

The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex.

Conclusions

The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.

Effect of Computer-Aided Navigation Techniques on the Accuracy of Endodontic Access Cavities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the effect of computer-aided navigation techniques on the accuracy of endodontic access cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of clinical studies, based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, was performed that evaluated the root canal location rate of computer-aided navigation techniques applied to endodontic access cavities. Four different databases were used to consult the literature: PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. After discarding duplicate articles and applying inclusion criteria, 14 articles were selected for qualitative analysis and 13 for quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

the root canal location success rate started at 98.1% (CI: 95.7-100%) of the cases performed through a computer-aided navigation technique. The prediction interval ranged from 93.3% to 100%. The meta-analysis did not detect heterogeneity between the combined studies (Q-test = 17.3; p = 0.185; I² = 25%). No statistically significant differences were found between computer-aided static navigation techniques (success rate: 98.5%) and computer-aided dynamic navigation techniques (success rate: 94.5%) (Q test = 0.57; p = 0.451), nor between in vitro studies (success rate: 96.2%) and in vivo studies (success rate: 100%) (Q test = 2.53; p-value = 0.112). An odds success ratio of 13.1 (CI: 95%; 3.48, 49.1) encourages the use of computer-aided navigation techniques over conventional endodontic access cavity procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

the endodontic access cavities created using static and dynamic computer-aided navigation techniques are highly accurate in locating the root canal system.

Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (dCAIS) systems when used to place dental implants and to compare its accuracy with static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS) systems and freehand implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was made to identify all relevant studies reporting on the accuracy of dCAIS systems for dental implant placement. The following PICO question was developed: "In patients or artificial models, is dental implant placement accuracy higher when dCAIS systems are used in comparison with sCAIS systems or with freehand placement? The main outcome variable was angular deviation between the central axes of the planned and final position of the implant. The data were extracted in descriptive tables, and a meta-analysis of single means was performed in order to estimate the deviations for each variable using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Out of 904 potential articles, the 24 selected assessed 9 different dynamic navigation systems. The mean angular and entry 3D global deviations for clinical studies were 3.68° (95% CI: 3.61 to 3.74; I² = 99.4%) and 1.03 mm (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04; I² = 82.4%), respectively. Lower deviation values were reported in in vitro studies (mean angular deviation of 2.01° (95% CI: 1.95 to 2.07; I² = 99.1%) and mean entry 3D global deviation of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.48 ; I² = 98.5%). No significant differences were found between the different dCAIS systems. These systems were significantly more accurate than sCAIS systems (mean difference (MD): -0.86°; 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.36) and freehand implant placement (MD: -4.33°; 95% CI: -5.40 to -3.25).

CONCLUSION

dCAIS systems allow highly accurate implant placement with a mean angular of less than 4°. However, a 2-mm safety margin should be applied, since deviations of more than 1 mm were observed. dCAIS systems increase the implant placement accuracy when compared with freehand implant placement and also seem to slightly decrease the angular deviation in comparison with sCAIS systems.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of dCAIS could reduce the rate of complications since it allows a highly accurate implant placement.

Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search up to March 2020 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial to identify studies using dynamic navigation in implant surgery, and additional manual search was performed as well. Clinical trials and model studies were selected. The primary outcome was accuracy. A single-arm meta-analysis of continuous data was conducted. Meta-regression was utilized for comparison on study design, guidance method, jaw, and systems.

RESULTS

Ten studies, four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and six prospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1,298 drillings and implants were evaluated. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (five clinical trials and five model studies) revealed average global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and angular deviation were 1.02 mm, 95% CI (0.83, 1.21), 1.33 mm, 95% CI (0.98, 1.67), and 3.59°, 95% CI (2.09, 5.09). Meta-regression shown no difference between model studies and clinical trials (p = .295, 0.336, 0.185), drilling holes and implant (p = .36, 0.279, 0.695), maxilla and mandible (p = .875, 0.632, 0.281), and five different systems (p = .762, 0.342, 0.336).

CONCLUSION

Accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery reaches a clinically acceptable range and has potential in clinical usage, but more patient-centered outcomes and socio-economic benefits should be reported.

Efficacy of Computer-Aided Static Navigation Technique on the Accuracy of Endodontic Microsurgery. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy of the computer-aided static navigation technique on the accuracy of root apex location in endodontic microsurgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the apex location rate of the computer-aided static navigation techniques applied to endodontic microsurgery. A total of four databases were consulted in the literature search: Pubmed-Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, seven articles were selected for the qualitative and the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

The root apex location success rate stated at 96.8% (confidence interval (CI): 93.0-100%) of the cases performed through a computer-aided static navigation technique. The prediction interval ranges from 91.4% to 100%. The meta-analysis did not detect heterogeneity between the combined studies (Q-test = 6.15; p-value = 0.407; I2 = 2.4%). The computer-aided static navigation techniques showed a root apex location success rate 27 times higher than conventional endodontic microsurgery procedures (Q test = 0.80; p = 0.671; I2 = 0%). Three studies of computer-aided static navigation techniques and control group were compared using a random effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method with a statistically significant odds success ratio of 27.7, with a 95% confidence interval between 11.3 and 68.1 (z test = 7.23; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to in vitro studies analyzed, endodontic microsurgeries performed through computer-aided static navigation techniques show a high precision.

Comparison of the accuracy of dental implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted systems: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted systems (CAS) in a partially edentulous mandible model.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A total of 80 implants was placed in mandible models. The implants were placed using either static or dynamic computer-assisted system. Deviations of implant hex, apex and angulation were measured between preoperative planning and postoperative CBCT in planning software.

RESULTS

The mean deviations of implant hex, apex and angulation in static CAS group were 1.15 ± 0.34 mm, 1.37 ± 0.38 mm and 2.60 ± 1.11 degree, while in dynamic CAS group were 0.40 ± 0.41 mm, 0.34 ± 0.33 mm and 0.97 ± 1.21 degree, respectively. Implant placement with dynamic CAS showed less deviations of shoulder, apex and angulation than with static CAS significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The implant accuracy using CAS system could be influenced by the guiding technique.

Comparative accuracy of cone-beam CT and conventional multislice computed tomography for real-time navigation in zygomatic implant surgery

BACKGROUND

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and conventional multislice CT (MSCT) are both used in zygomatic implant navigation surgery but the superiority of one technique versus the other remains unclear.

PURPOSE

This study compared the accuracy of CBCT and MSCT in zygomatic implant navigation surgery by calculating the deviations of implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with severely atrophic maxillae were classified into two groups according to the use of CBCT- or MSCT-guided navigation system. The entry and apical distance deviation, and the angle deviation of zygomatic implants were measured on fused operation images. A linear effect model was used for analysis, with statistical significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

A total of 72 zygomatic implants were inserted as planned in 23 patients. The comparison of deviations in CBCT and MSCT groups showed a mean (± SD) entry deviation of 1.69 ± 0.59 mm vs 2.04 ± 0.78 mm (P = .146), apical deviation of 2 ± 0.68 mm vs 2.55 ± 0.85 (P < .001), and angle deviation of 2.32 ± 1.02° vs 3.23 ± 1.21° (P = .038).

CONCLUSION

Real-time zygomatic implant navigation surgery with CBCT may result in higher values for accuracy than MSCT.

3D planning of ear prosthesis and navigated flapless surgery for craniofacial implants: A pilot study

New 3D digital technologies can be applied to implant-supported ear prostheses to restore anatomical structures damaged by cancer, dysplasia, or trauma. However, several factors influence the accuracy of implant positioning using a cranial template. This pilot study describes an innovative navigated flapless surgery for craniofacial implants, prosthetically guided by 3D planning of the ear prosthesis. Laser surface scanning of the face allowed for mapping of the healthy ear onto the defect site, and projection of the volume and position of the final prosthesis. The projected ear volume was superimposed on the skull bone image obtained by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), performed with the navigation system marker plate positioned in the patient's mouth. The craniofacial implants were fitted optimally to the ear prosthesis. After system calibration, real-time navigated implant placement based on the virtual planning was performed with minimally invasive flapless surgery under local anesthesia. After 3 months of healing, digital impressions of the implants were made, and the digital manufacturing workflow was completed to manufacture the ear prosthesis anchored to the craniofacial implants. The proposed digital method facilitated implant positioning during flapless surgery, improving the ear prosthesis manufacturing process and reducing operation time, patient morbidity, and related costs. This protocol avoids the need for a reference tool fixed in the cranial bone, as is usually required for maxillofacial surgery, and confirmed that surgical navigation is useful for guiding the insertion of craniofacial implants during flapless surgery.

Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of implant position using surgical guides fabricated by additive and subtractive techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A partially edentulous standardized mandibular implant model with different bone densities and soft tissue was duplicated and a diagnostic wax-up was performed for the #30 area. A reference radiographic guide was fabricated and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was made with the reference radiographic guide in place. A surgical guide was designed using BlueSky Plan 4 software and a reference implant was placed in the #30 region. The STL file of the surgical guide was exported and specimens (n = 15) were fabricated by two different techniques: additive (3D printing) and subtractive (milling). The standardized mandibular model was surface-scanned and duplicated with printed dental model resin (n = 30). Each surgical guide was used to place an implant in thirty duplicate printed models. Differences in implant position as compared to the reference were measured from digital scans with scan bodies in place. The angular deviations, differences in depth, coronal and apical deviations were measured using GeoMagic Control X software. Results were analyzed by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance). Intraclass correlation was used to assess measurement reproducibility with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing as needed (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in accuracy of implant placement using guides fabricated using additive vs subtractive techniques. The mean angular deviations between the reference and actual position of implant in mesio-distal cross-section were 0.780 ± 0.80° for printed group and 0.77 ± 0.72° for the milled group. The differences in bucco-lingual cross-section were 1.60 ± 1.22° in in printed group and 1.77 ± 0.76° in the milled group. The differences in depth (mm) were measured at the top of the scan body at four locations: mesial, distal, buccal and lingual. The mean differences in depth for the group that used printed surgical guides were (mesial) 0.37 ± 0.29 mm, (distal) 0.32 ± 0.23 mm, (buccal) 0.24 ± 0.23 mm, and (lingual) 0.25 ± 0.17 mm. The mean differences in depth for the group that used milled surgical guides were (mesial) 0.51 ± 0.33 mm, (distal) 0.40 ± 0.32 mm, (buccal) 0.22 ± 0.23 mm, and (lingual) 0.23 ± 0.12 mm in those four aspects, respectively. The mean coronal deviation showed 0.32 mm in the printed group and 0.27 mm in the milled group. For the apical deviation, the results of this study showed mean apical deviation 0.84 mm in the printed group and 0.80 mm in the milled group.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that 3D-printed surgical guides are statistically as accurate as milled guides for guided-implant surgery with the benefits of high accuracy, ease of fabrication, less waste compared to subtractive techniques, and reduction of laboratory time thereby increasing cost-effectiveness.

Comparing Accuracy of Implant Installation with a Navigation System (NS), a Laboratory Guide (LG), NS with LG, and Freehand Drilling

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement by using the conventional freehand method, the surgical guide alone, the dental navigation system alone, and the dental navigation system with a surgical guide. The participants were aged 20 years or older and were requiring dental implant surgery according to an assessment made by a dentist between July 2014 and December 2017. A total of 128 dental implants were inserted, 32 dental implants in each group, and participants with similar or identical age (i.e., 20–50 years or 50 years or above) and missing tooth locations were paired for comparison. Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Using the dental navigation system with a surgical guide could help dentists to position implants more accurately. Total, longitudinal, and angular error deviation were significantly different (p < 0.0001). The same level of accuracy could be obtained for the different jaws and tooth positions. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the total, longitudinal, and angular errors differed significantly (p < 0.0001). A comparison of the four dental implant surgical methods indicated that the combination of a dental implant navigation system and a surgical guide kit achieved the highest accuracy in terms of the different tooth positions and jaws.

Accuracy of Edentulous Computer-Aided Implant Surgery as Compared to Virtual Planning: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of computer-aided dental implant positions obtained with mucosal-supported templates as compared to Three-Dimensional (3D) planning. Materials and methods: One-hundred implants were inserted into 14 edentulous patients using the All-on-4/6 protocol after surgical virtual planning with RealGUIDE, 3DIEMME, and Geomagic software. After 6 months, three-dimensional neck (V) and apex (S) spatial coordinates of implants and angle inclination displacements as compared to virtual plans were evaluated. Results: The S maxilla coordinates revealed a significant discrepancy between clinical and virtual implant positions (p-value = 0.091). The V coordinates showed no significant differences (p-value = 0.71). The S (p-value = 0.017) and V (p-value = 0.038) mandible coordinates showed significant discrepancies between the clinical and virtual positions of the screws. Implant evaluation showed a 1-mm in average of the horizontal deviation in the V point and a 1.6-mm deviation in the S point. A mean 5° angular global deviation was detected. The multivariate permutation test of the S (p-value = 0.02) confirmed the difference. Greater errors in the mandible were detected as compared to the maxilla, and a higher S discrepancy was found in the posterior jaw compared to the anterior section of both the mandible and maxilla. Conclusions: Computer-aided surgery with mucosal-supported templates is a predictable procedure for implant placement. Data showed a discrepancy between the actual dental implant position as compared to the virtual plan, but this was not statistically significant. However, the horizontal and angle deviations detected indicated that flap surgery should be used to prevent implant positioning errors due to poor sensitivity and accuracy in cases of severe jaw atrophy.

The Workflow of a New Dynamic Navigation System for the Insertion of Dental Implants in the Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws: Report of Two Cases

Background: This case series describes the surgical workflow during maxillary full-arch rehabilitations in two patients through the All-on-4 concept (standard and hybrid) assisted by DTX Studio Implant Software planning and X-Guide Navigation. Results: The X-Guide Navigation enabled the drills and implants to be positioned and oriented precisely, allowing the implants to be positioned favorably under the surgical and prosthetic points of view through the avoidance of damage to the maxillary sinus and nasal cavity. Dynamic navigation-assisted surgery provided advantages, including the possibility to modify the implants’ system, length, or location perioperatively. However, it must be underlined that to achieve proficiency with this technology it is necessary to consider a necessary learning curve. Conclusion: The insertion of dental implants assisted by dynamic navigation for maxillary full-arch rehabilitations was considered a safe and predictable procedure. Nevertheless, it can be improved (such as with a simpler fiducial markers protocol), aiming to simplify the procedure.

Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Procedure for Endodontic Access Cavities: An in Vitro Study

Purpose: To analyze the accuracy of two computer-aided navigation techniques to guide the performance of endodontic access cavities compared with the conventional access procedure. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 single-rooted anterior teeth were selected, which were randomly distributed into three study groups: Group A—guided performance of endodontic access cavities through computer-aided static navigation system (n = 10) (SN); Group B—guided performance of endodontic access cavities through computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 10) (DN); and Group C—manual (freehand) performance of endodontic access cavities (n = 10) (MN). The endodontic access cavities of the SN group were performed with a stereolithography template designed on 3D implant planning software, based on preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a 3D extraoral surface scan, and endodontic access cavities of the DN group were planned and performed by the dynamic navigation system. After endodontic access cavities were performed, a second CBCT was done, and the degree of accuracy between the planned and performed endodontic access cavities was analyzed using therapeutic planning software and Student’s t-test. Results: Paired t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between SN and DN at the coronal (p = 0.6542), apical (p = 0.9144), or angular (p = 0.0724) level; however, statistically significant differences were observed between the two computer-aided navigation techniques and the MN group at the coronal (p < 0.0001), apical (p < 0.0001), and angular (p < 0.0001) level. Conclusion: Both computer-aided static and dynamic navigation procedures allowed accurate performance of endodontic access cavities.

Incidence of nasopalatine canal perforation in relation to virtual implant placement: A cone beam computed tomography study

BACKGROUND

The nasopalatine canal (NPC) is of special importance when considering implant therapy in the maxillary central incisors' region.

PURPOSE

To investigate the incidence of NPC perforation in relation to virtual immediate implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search through the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) database of The University of Oklahoma-College of Dentistry was conducted. First, canal related measurements were conducted. Second, digital prosthetic planning was performed. Then, immediate implants were virtually placed and additional measurements were performed. Perforation rate was assessed. Last, data obtained was statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 217 scans fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only 8% of cases showed NPC perforation. The perforation occurred at mid-third of the implant or at the mid and apical third in 33% and 22% of the cases, respectively. A statistically significant association was found between perforation of NPC and bone width palatal to the root of the central incisor (P < .0001) as well as canal angulation (P = .0196). NPC angulation (°) and palatal bone width (mm) predisposed to a higher risk of perforation. Only 27.78% of the perforations could be overcome by the installation of shorter implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Low incidence of NPC perforation could be expected when immediately placing implants in the maxillary incisor region.

Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Navigation for Dental Implant Placement: An In Vitro Study

Aim: To analyze the accuracy capability of two computer-aided navigation procedures for dental implant placement. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 dental implants were selected, which were randomly distributed into two study groups, namely, group A, consisting of those implants that were placed using a computer-aided static navigation system (n = 20) (guided implant (GI)) and group B, consisting of those implants that were placed using a computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 20) (navigation implant (NI)). The placement of the implants from group A was performed using surgical templates that were designed using 3D implant-planning software based on preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a 3D extraoral surface scan, and the placement of group B implants was planned and performed using the dynamic navigation system. After placing the dental implants, a second CBCT was performed and the degree of accuracy of the planning and placement of the implants was analyzed using therapeutic planning software and Student’s t-test. Results: The paired t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between GI and NI at the coronal (p = 0.6535) and apical (p = 0.9081) levels; however, statistically significant differences were observed between the angular deviations of GI and NI (p = 0.0272). Conclusion: Both computer-aided static and dynamic navigation procedures allow accurate implant placement.

The influence of dental experience on a dental implant navigation system

Background

This study evaluated the operating performance of an implant navigation system used by dental students and dentists of prosthodontic background with varying levels of experience. A surgical navigation system and optical tracking system were used, and dentists’ accuracies were evaluated in terms of differences between the positions of actually drilled holes and those of the holes planned using software before surgeries.

Methods

The study participants were 5 dental students or dentists who had studied in the same university and hospital but had different experience levels regarding implants. All participants were trained in operating the AqNavi system in the beginning of the study. Subsequently, using 5 pairs of dental models, each participant drilled 5 implant holes at 6 partially edentulous positions (11, 17, 26, 31, 36, and 47). In total, each participant conducted 30 drilling tests.

Results

In total, 150 tests among 5 dentists at 6 tooth positions (11, 17, 26, 31, 36, and 47) were conducted. Although a comparison of the tests revealed significant differences in the longitudinal error (P < .0001) and angular error (P = .0011), no significant difference was observed in the total error among the dentists.

Conclusions

A relatively long operating time was associated with relatively little implant experience. Through the dental navigation system, dental students can be introduced to dental implant surgery earlier than what was possible in the past. The results demonstrated that the operational accuracy of the dental implant navigation system is not restricted by participants’ implant experience levels. The implant navigation system assists the dentist in the ability to accurately insert the dental implant into the correct position without being affected by his/her own experience of implant surgery.