Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. Is there a need for computer-guided implant surgery ……………………….…... Osseointegrated dental implants…………………………………………………. Analog implant installation procedure…………………………………………… Digital advancements in the implant planning and installation procedure………. Integration of an intraoral surface scan …………………………………………. Fusion of data from CBCT and intraoral scanning ……………………………… Different types of guided implant surgery ………………………………………. Dynamic guided implant surgery…………………………………………………. Template guided implant surgery -static ………………………………………... Bone supported guides …………………………………………………………… Mucosal supported guides ………………………………………………………. Tooth supported guides …………………………………………………………. Planning procedures -guided implant surgery …………………………………. Surgical guide production………………………………………………………… Manual production ………………………………………………………. Digital additive manufacturing …………………………………………. Clinical application of surgical templates ………………………………………. Learning curve …………………………………………………………………… Implant survival …………………………………………………………………. Mispositioning of the surgical guide ……………………………………………. Assessment of deviations between planned and achieved implant positions …… Clinical outcome of guided implant surgery……………………………………...

Objective:To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement with a digitally planned guided implant procedure. Two methods for identifying the actual postoperative positioning of the implants were compared: CBCT and IO scanning. Material and methods:Twenty-eight implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface were placed in thirteen patients using tooth-supported surgical guides following a digital planning procedure. The implants were submerged for 12-15 weeks.New CBCT images were taken for identification of the implant position. After second stage surgery, scan bodies were mounted on the implants and scanned with an IO digital scanner. The recordings from the CBCT images and the IO scans were compared with respect to the identified positions of the implants. Results:The study did not resolve any significant differences of the identified positioning of the implants as measured by CBCT or IO, except for the apical deviations at the coronal and apical points.The angular difference between CBCT and IO scanning at the coronal point was −0.011 (±0.6) degrees, whereas the 3D deviation was 0.03(±0.17) mm. The distal deviation between CBCT and IO scanning was 0.01(± 0.16) mm, and the vestibular deviation 0.033(± 0.16) mm and the apical deviation difference was 0.09(± 0.16) mm.The 3D deviation at the apical point was 0.04(± 0.22) mm. The distal deviation between CBCT and IO scanning was 0.06(± 0.19) mm, and the vestibular deviation 0.032(± 0.23) mm and the apical deviation difference was 0.09(± 0. 16) mm. Conclusion:The study demonstrated that accuracy measurements using IO scanning yields comparable results to those obtained by CBCT. K E Y W O R D Sclinical research, clinical trials, patient centered outcomes, surgical techniques