Purpose To investigate the accuracy of a miniaturized dynamic navigation system with intraoral markers and two different workflows for dental implantation and to compare with static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) surgery. Materials and Methods Two operators performed a total of 270 implant insertions in polyurethane mandibular models under simulated clinical conditions. Implants were placed after CBCT‐based virtual planning in three different groups: two workflows utilizing dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery (dCAIS; DG1: marker in CBCT; DG2: 3D‐printed marker) and the others with sCAIS (TG: template guided). Postoperative surface scans were matched to the planning data and allowed an evaluation of the angular and spatial deviation between the planned and the actually achieved implant position. Descriptive statistics were followed by a Mixed Model Analysis to determine the influence of the operator, the method, and operating area on different accuracy parameters and the random effect of the model number. Results The mean angular deviation ranged from 2.26° (DG1) to 2.96° (TG). The mean 3D deviation at the implant's tip ranged from 1.08 mm (TG) to 1.51 mm (DG2) and at the implant's base from 0.69 mm (TG) to 1.49 mm (DG2). The operator showed no significant influence on the accuracy. The method showed significant influence on singular parameters and the operating area on all spatial accuracy parameters. Conclusions Dynamic navigation systems with intraoral markers enable accurate implant positioning, which is comparable to the static‐guided implant surgery. 3D‐printed markers provide less accurate results compared to prefabricated markers, attached before CBCT scan.