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.

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.

To analyze the effect of a computer-aided static navigation technique and mixed reality technology on the accuracy of orthodontic micro-screw placement. Material and methods: Two hundred and seven orthodontic micro-screws were placed using either a computer-aided static navigation technique (NAV), a mixed reality device (MR), or a conventional freehand technique (FHT). Accuracy across different dental sectors was also analyzed. CBCT and intraoral scans were taken both prior to and following orthodontic micro-screw placement. The deviation angle and horizontal deviation were then analyzed; these measurements were taken at the coronal entry point and apical endpoint between the planned and performed orthodontic micro-screws. In addition, any complications resulting from micro-screw placement, such as spot perforations, were also analyzed across all dental sectors. Results: The statistical analysis showed significant differences between study groups with regard to the coronal entry-point (p < 0.001). The NAV study group showed statistically significant differences from the FHT (p < 0.001) and MR study groups (p < 0.001) at the apical end-point (p < 0.001), and the FHT group found significant differences from the angular deviations of the NAV (p < 0.001) and MR study groups deviations (p = 0.0011). Different dental sectors also differed significantly. (p < 0.001) Additionally, twelve root perforations were observed in the FHT group, while there were no root perforations in the NAV group. Conclusions: Computer-aided static navigation technique enable more accurate orthodontic micro-screw placement and fewer intraoperative complications when compared with the mixed reality technology and conventional freehand techniques.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of the digital mock-up and operator experience on the dental implant planning position. A total of 200 dental implants were planned, which were distributed into two study groups: A. dental implant planning by dental surgeons with 5–10 years of experience (n = 80); and B. dental implant planning by dental surgery students without experience (n = 120). Operators were required to plan eight dental implants in the same maxillary edentulous case uploaded in 3D implant-planning software, before and after using the digital mock-up. Deviations between the dental implant planning positions before and after using the digital mock-up were analyzed at platform, apical and angular levels, and were analyzed using a 3D implant-planning software using Student’s t test. The paired t-test revealed statistically significant differences between the deviation levels of participants with 5–10 years’ experience and no experience at the platform, apical and angular levels. Digital mock-ups allow for more accurate dental implant planning regardless of the experience of the operator. Nevertheless, they are more useful for operators without dental surgery experience.

The aim of this comparative study is to analyze the influence of drilling technique on the radiographic, thermographic, and geomorphometric effects of dental implant drills and osteotomy site preparations. One hundred and twenty osteotomy site preparations were performed on sixty epoxy resin samples using three unused dental implant drill systems and four drilling techniques performed with a random distribution into the following study groups: Group A: drilling technique performed at 800 rpm with irrigation (n = 30); Group B: drilling technique performed at 45 rpm without irrigation (n = 30); Group C: drilling technique performed at 45 rpm with irrigation (n = 30); and Group D: drilling technique performed at 800 rpm without irrigation (n = 30). The osteotomy site preparation morphologies performed by the 4.1 mm diameter dental implant drills from each study group were analyzed and compared using a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. The termographic effects generated by the 4.1 mm diameter dental implant drills from each study group were registered using a termographic digital camera and the unused and 4.1 mm diameter dental implant drills that were used 30 times from each study group were exposed to a micro computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis to obtain a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) digital files that determined the wear comparison by geomorphometry. Statistically significant differences were observed between the thermographic and radiographic results of the study groups (p < 0.001). The effect of cooling significatively reduced the heat generation during osteotomy site preparation during high-speed drilling; furthermore, osteotomy site preparation was not affected by the wear of the dental implant drills after 30 uses, regardless of the drilling technique.