Comparative accuracy of <scp>cone‐beam CT</scp> and conventional multislice computed tomography for real‐time navigation in zygomatic implant surgery

Tao, Baoxin; Shen, Yihan; Sun, Yuanyuan; Huang, Wei; Wang, Feng; Wu, Yiqun

doi:10.1111/cid.12958

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CBCT is the primary method to acquire navigation images. It has been confirmed to gain higher accuracy than conventional multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) due to its small voxel size (Tao et al, 2020). In CBCT, layer thickness, voxel size, threshold segmentation process, patients' movement, metal restoration, and operator's proficiency, all these factors influence accuracy (Wei et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does machine‐vision‐assisted dynamic navigation improve the accuracy of digitally planned prosthetically guided immediate implant placement? A randomized controlled trial

Wei

Deng

et al. 2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immediate implant placement has received increasing attention due to the shortened treatment period and predictable prognosis, which has the potential to improve patient satisfaction (Kan et al., 2018;Shi et al., 2015). Placement, however, utilizes mainly the socket and the alveolar bone plate slope; bleeding from the socket interferes with proper visualization of the implant site, thus making the surgery more difficult and affecting the accuracy of implant placement (Blanco, Carral, Argibay, & Liñares, 2019).Suboptimal immediate implant position may result in restorative and esthetic challenges, and may compromise the longevity of the

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does machine‐vision‐assisted dynamic navigation improve the accuracy of digitally planned prosthetically guided immediate implant placement? A randomized controlled trial

Wei

Deng

et al. 2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Utilizing high-quality CBCT or CT data for planning, producing, and executing surgical guides or navigation operations has shown similar results in surgery accuracy [ 48 , 49 ]. To analyze the planned/placed error, all eligible studies performed at least one post-operative CBCT or CT scan to merge with the pre-operative planning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Assisted by Dynamic Computer-Aided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Fan,

Sáenz-Ravello,

Diaz

et al. 2023

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The present systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of zygomatic implant (ZI) placement using dynamic computer-aided surgery (d-CAIS), static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), and a free-hand approach in patients with severe atrophic edentulous maxilla and/or deficient maxilla. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches until May 2023 were performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Clinical trials and cadaver studies were selected. The primary outcome was planned/placed deviation. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the survival of ZI and surgical complications. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and meta-regression was utilized to compare fiducial registration amounts for d-CAIS and the different designs of s-CAIS. Results: A total of 14 studies with 511 ZIs were included (Nobel Biocare: 274, Southern Implant: 42, SIN Implant: 16, non-mentioned: 179). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the d-CAIS group were 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.34–2.29) at the entry point and 2.95 mm (95% CI: 1.66–4.24) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 3.49 degrees (95% CI: 2.04–4.93). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the s-CAIS group were 1.19 mm (95% CI: 0.83–1.54) at the entry point and 1.80 mm (95% CI: 1.10–2.50) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 2.15 degrees (95% CI: 1.43–2.88). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the free-hand group were 2.04 mm (95% CI: 1.69–2.39) at the entry point and 3.23 mm (95% CI: 2.34–4.12) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 4.92 degrees (95% CI: 3.86–5.98). There was strong evidence of differences in the average entry, apex, and angular deviation between the navigation, surgical guide, and free-hand groups (p < 0.01). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the number of fiducial screws and the planned/placed deviation regarding entry, apex, and angular measurements. Conclusion: Using d-CAIS and modified s-CAIS for ZI surgery has shown clinically acceptable outcomes regarding average entry, apex, and angular deviations. The maximal deviation values were predominantly observed in the conventional s-CAIS. Surgeons should be mindful of potential deviations and complications regardless of the decision making in different guide approaches.

show abstract

“…This study reported results from edentulous patients who received treatment with a non‐zygomatic implant. Wu and colleagues reported the accuracy of zygomatic implant placement in edentulous patients using dynamic CAIS, with 1.45–1.57 mm global entry deviation, 1.96–2.10 mm global apex deviation, and 2.32–2.68° angular deviation (Tao et al, 2020,b; Wu et al, 2022). The zygomatic implants can measure up to 30–50 mm, which is much longer than the conventional implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The accuracy of dynamic computer assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous jaws: A retrospective case series

Wang,

Ge,

Mühlemann

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using a dynamic navigation system in fully edentulous jaws and to analyze the influence of implant distribution on implant position accuracy.Materials and MethodsEdentulous patients who received implant placement using a dynamic navigation system were included. Four to six mini screws were placed in the edentulous jaw under local anesthesia as fiducial markers. Then patients received CBCT scans. Virtual implant positions were designed in the planning software based on CBCT data. Under local anesthesia, implants were inserted under the guidance of the dynamic navigation system. CBCTs were taken following implant placement. The deviation between the actual and planned implant positions was measured by comparing the pre‐ and postsurgery CBCT.ResultsA total of 13 edentulous patients with 13 edentulous maxillae and 7 edentulous mandibles were included, and 108 implants were placed. The average linear deviations at the implant entry point and apex were 1.08 ± 0.52 mm and 1.15 ± 0.60 mm, respectively. The average angular deviation was 2.85 ± 1.20°. No significant difference was detected in linear and angular deviations between the maxillary and mandibular implants, neither between the anterior and posterior implants.ConclusionsThe dynamic navigation system provides high accuracy for implant placement in fully edentulous jaws, while the distribution of the implants showed little impact on implant position accuracy.

show abstract

Comparative accuracy of cone‐beam CT and conventional multislice computed tomography for real‐time navigation in zygomatic implant surgery

Cited by 21 publications

References 37 publications

Does machine‐vision‐assisted dynamic navigation improve the accuracy of digitally planned prosthetically guided immediate implant placement? A randomized controlled trial

Does machine‐vision‐assisted dynamic navigation improve the accuracy of digitally planned prosthetically guided immediate implant placement? A randomized controlled trial

The Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Assisted by Dynamic Computer-Aided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The accuracy of dynamic computer assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous jaws: A retrospective case series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About