The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to analyze the accuracy of implant placement using computer-assisted dynamic navigation procedures. An electronic literature search was carried out, supplemented by a manual search. The literature search was completed in June 2020. The results of in vitro and clinical studies were recorded separately from each other. For inclusion in the review, the studies had to examine at least the prosthetically relevant parameters for angle deviation, as well as global deviation or lateral deviation at the platform of the implant. Sixteen of 320 articles were included in the investigation: nine in vitro and seven clinical studies. The meta-analysis showed values of 4.1° for the clinical studies (95% CI, 3.12–5.10) and 3.7° for the in vitro studies (95% CI, 2.31–5.10) in terms of the angle deviation. The global deviation at the implant apex of the implant was 1.00 mm for the clinical studies (95% CI, 0.83–1.16) and 0.91 mm for the in vitro studies (95% CI, 0.60–1.12). These values indicate no significant difference between the clinical and in vitro studies. The results of this systematic review show a clinical accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted navigation that is comparable to that of static navigation. However, the dynamic navigation systems show a great heterogeneity that must be taken into account. Moreover, currently there are few clinical data available. Therefore, further investigations into the practicability of dynamic navigation seem necessary.

Background: This prospective clinical study aimed to investigate a possible deviation between the digitally planned implant position and the position achieved using dynamic navigation. The aim of the study was to establish clinical effectiveness and precision of implantation using dynamic navigation. Methods: Twenty consecutive patients received an implant (iSy-Implantat, Camlog, Wimsheim, Germany). One screw implant was placed in one jaw with remaining dentition of at least six teeth. The workflow was fully digital. Digital implant planning was conducted using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and an intraoral scan of the actual condition. Twenty implants were subsequently placed using a dynamic computer-assisted procedure. The clinical situation of the implant position was recorded using an intraoral scan. Using these data, models were produced via 3D printing, and CBCTs of these models were made using laboratory analogs. Deviations of the achieved implant position from the planned position were determined using evaluation software. Results: The evaluation of 20 implants resulted in a mean angle deviation of 2.7° (95% CI 2.2–3.3°). The 3D deviation at the implant shoulder was 1.83 mm (95% CI 1.34–2.33 mm). No significant differences were found for any of the parameters between the implantation in the upper or lower jaw and an open or flapless procedure (p-value < 0.05). Conclusion: The clinical trial showed that sufficiently precise implantation was possible with the dynamic navigation system used here. Dynamic navigation can improve the quality of implant positioning. In particular, the procedure allows safe positioning of the implants in minimally invasive procedures, which usually cannot be performed freehand in this form. A clinical benefit and effectiveness can be determined from the results.

Background: Misclassification rates defined as upgrading, upstaging, and upgrading and/or upstaging have not been tested in contemporary Black patients relative to White patients who fulfilled criteria for very-low-risk, low-risk, or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This study aimed to address this void. Methods: Within the SEER database (2010–2015), we focused on patients with very low, low, and favorable intermediate risk for prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and had available stage and grade information. Descriptive analyses, temporal trend analyses, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used. Results: Overall, 4,704 patients with very low risk (701 Black vs 4,003 White), 17,785 with low risk (2,696 Black vs 15,089 White), and 11,040 with favorable intermediate risk (1,693 Black vs 9,347 White) were identified. Rates of upgrading and/or upstaging in Black versus White patients were respectively 42.1% versus 37.7% (absolute Δ = +4.4%; P<.001) in those with very low risk, 48.6% versus 46.0% (absolute Δ = +2.6%; P<.001) in those with low risk, and 33.8% versus 35.3% (absolute Δ = –1.5%; P=.05) in those with favorable intermediate risk. Conclusions: Rates of misclassification were particularly elevated in patients with very low risk and low risk, regardless of race, and ranged from 33.8% to 48.6%. Recalibration of very-low-, low-, and, to a lesser extent, favorable intermediate-risk active surveillance criteria may be required. Finally, our data indicate that Black patients may be given the same consideration as White patients when active surveillance is an option. However, further validations should ideally follow.