No abstract

Background Recently, dental implant technology has been widely used for oral reconstruction. Dental implants are the treatment of choice for those patients with dental absences. An optimal implant placement is based on the prosthetic driven concept in order to achieve an aesthetic and functional restoration with a long-term prognosis. There are two types of guided implant surgery that are described in the literature: Static Guided Surgery (SGS) and Dynamic Guided Surgery (DGS). The aim of this study is to be aware of the current state of dynamic surgery and compare in the literature the discrepancies between planning and placement of dental implants. Material and Methods The study consists of a bibliographic review on the topic. The research has been performed in the Medline/Pubmed of articles published by different professional associations and societies in the international context. Results Twenty two studies out of 100 articles from the initial search were finally included. Our results have been compared with other current available papers in the literature reviewed that obtained similar outcomes. Conclusions Dynamic navigation shows a better accuracy and precision of implant placement. To corroborate the results of this review as well as to evaluate the different variables that could influence the accuracy of this technique, future randomized control trials will be needed. Key words: Guided surgery, dynamic navigation, dynamic guided surgery, computer assisted surgery.

(1) Background: Dynamic guided surgery is a computer-guided freehand technology that allows highly accurate procedures to be carried out in real time through motion-tracking instruments. The aim of this research was to compare the accuracy between dynamic guided surgery (DGS) and alternative implant guidance methods, namely, static guided surgery (SGS) and freehand (FH). (2) Methods: Searches were conducted in the Cochrane and Medline databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective case series and to answer the following focused question: “What implant guidance tool is more accurate and secure with regard to implant placement surgery?” The implant deviation coefficient was calculated for four different parameters: coronal and apical horizontal, angular, and vertical deviations. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of 0.05 following application of the eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Twenty-five publications were included in this systematic review. The results show a non-significant weighted mean difference (WMD) between the DGS and the SGS in all of the assessed parameters: coronal (n = 4 WMD = 0.02 mm; p = 0.903), angular (n = 4 WMD = −0.62°; p = 0.085), and apical (n = 3 WMD = 0.08 mm; p = 0.401). In terms of vertical deviation, not enough data were available for a meta-analysis. However, no significant differences were found among the techniques (p = 0.820). The WMD between DGS and FH demonstrated significant differences favoring DGS in three parameters as follows: coronal (n = 3 WMD = −0.66 mm; p =< 0.001), angular (n = 3 WMD = −3.52°; p < 0.001), and apical (n = 2 WMD = −0.73 mm; p =< 0.001). No WMD was observed regarding the vertical deviation analysis, but significant differences were seen among the different techniques (p = 0.038). (4) Conclusions: DGS is a valid alternative treatment achieving similar accuracy to SGS. DGS is also more accurate, secure, and precise than the FH method when transferring the presurgical virtual implant plan to the patient.

Background and Aim Methods and Materials Presented at Results Tips for Excel ChartsCopy and paste your Excel chart. The chart can be stretched to fit as required. If you need to edits parts of the chart, we recommend you edit the original chart in Excel, then re-paste the new chart.