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

• Published in: Head & face medicine 2024-05, Vol.20 (1), p.30-30, Article 30
• Main Authors: Younis, Hamza, Lv, Chengpeng, Xu, Boya, Zhou, Huixia, Du, Liangzhi, Liao, Lifan, Zhao, Ningbo, Long, Wen, Elayah, Sadam Ahmed, Chang, Xiaofeng, He, Longlong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Aged; Algorithms; Comparative analysis; Computer-aided surgery; Computer-assisted surgery; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental implants; Female; Humans; Implant dentures; Local anesthesia; Male; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Middle Aged; Mouth; Navigation systems; Patients; Planning; Prospective Studies; Software; Surgeons; Surgery; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods; Surgical navigation; Surgical outcomes
• ISSN: 1746-160X; 1746-160X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13005-024-00433-1

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. 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. 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