Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guide for dental implant placement

Wu, Dong; Zhou, Lin; Yang, Jin Hyuk; Bao, Zhenmin; Lin, Yanjun; Chen, Jiang; Huang, Wenxiu; Chen, Yonghui

doi:10.1186/s40729-020-00272-0

Cited by 63 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, few clinical studies on current methods have investigated the accuracy of implant positions in dynamic navigation [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Previously published data on the accuracy of dynamic navigation were analyzed in three systematic reviews.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another factor with a significant influence on accuracy is the type of implant [ 48 ]. In a retrospective study by Wu et al, no significant differences between the dynamic and static navigations were found at the coronal or apical endpoints or in the angular deviation when evaluating a total of 95 implants [ 41 ]. Yimari et al also reported a similar result in a randomized clinical trial [ 42 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results showed a comparable precision with mean coronal deviations of 1.24 ± 0.39 mm vs. 1.05 ± 0.44 mm and an angular deviation of 3.78° ± 1.84° vs. 3.06° ± 1.37° [ 37 , 42 ]. Wu et al did not find any significant differences arising from operating surgeons and their experience levels [ 41 ]. These results suggest that the values are also somewhat robust when used by different surgeons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Dynamic Navigation in Implant Placement with a Fully Digital Approach: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Edelmann¹,

Wetzel²,

Knipper³

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Dynamic Navigation in Implant Placement with a Fully Digital Approach: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Edelmann¹,

Wetzel²,

Knipper³

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Precise placement of implants is of great importance in survival of an implant-supported prosthesis [1]. Implant malposition was reported to be the most likely reason to cause peri-implantitis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of implant placement accuracy in two different preoperative digital workflows: navigated vs. pilot-drill-guided surgery

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows. Methods A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model. Results The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex. Conclusions The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.

show abstract

“… 54 Although much have been spoken about the accuracy of Navigation over conventional surgery, a recent study by Wu et al concluded that there are no significant statistical differences between Navigation assisted surgeries and conventional ones in terms of accuracy and postoperative outcomes. 55 …”

Section: Application In Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Navigation in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Surgeon’s Perspectives

Anand¹,

Panwar²

2021

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgeries related to the maxillofacial area deal with an intricate network of anatomical structures. With the complexity of the vital structures, it necessitates a surgical team to respect each anatomical boundary. In the past, there was an exceptionally high number of cases with surgical errors. These errors were not because of flaws in the surgeon’s skills or techniques but owing to lack of resources. Visualisation is one of the key factors that determines the precision of any surgical outcome. Advances in surgical planning have led to the introduction of a “Navigation” system that helps surgeons to see more, know more and ultimately do more for their patients. The usefulness of the navigation system in oral surgeries has been indicated by its surgical applications in craniomaxillofacial trauma, orthognathic surgeries, head and neck pathological resections, complex skull base surgeries and surgery involving temporomandibular joint. A vast majority of research literature has suggested remarkable improvement in surgical outcomes under the guidance of 3d planning and navigation. However, with such an inordinate advancement, financial expenses and a gradual learning curve are always a constraining factor in surgical navigation. This article overviews indication of navigation in craniofacial surgeries with a focus on applied aspect, planning and solution to the future problem.

show abstract

Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guide for dental implant placement

Cited by 63 publications

References 27 publications

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Dynamic Navigation in Implant Placement with a Fully Digital Approach: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Dynamic Navigation in Implant Placement with a Fully Digital Approach: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Comparison of implant placement accuracy in two different preoperative digital workflows: navigated vs. pilot-drill-guided surgery

Role of Navigation in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Surgeon’s Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About