Comparison of the accuracy of immediate implant placement using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant system in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: a prospective study

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to compare the accuracy of fully guided between dynamic and static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Methods A total of 40 qualified patients requiring immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone were randomly and equally assigned to either static CAIS group (n = 20) or dynamic CAIS groups (n = 20). Global deviations at entry, apex, and angular deviation between placed and planned implant position were measured and compared as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were the deviation of implant placement at mesial–distal, labial–palatal, and coronal–apical directions. Results For the immediate implant placement, the mean global entry deviations in static and dynamic CAIS groups were 0.99 ± 0.63 mm and 1.06 ± 0.55 mm (p = 0.659), while the mean global apex deviations were 1.50 ± 0.75 mm and 1.18 ± 0.53 mm (p = 0.231), respectively. The angular deviation in the static and dynamic CAIS group was 3.07 ± 2.18 degrees and 3.23 ± 1.67 degrees (p = 0.547). No significant differences were observed for the accuracy parameters of immediate implant placement between static and dynamic CAIS systems, except the deviation of the implant at entry in the labial–palatal direction in the dynamic CAIS group was significantly more labial than of the static CAIS (p = 0.005). Conclusions This study demonstrated that clinically acceptable accuracy of immediate implant placement could be achieved using static and dynamic CAIS systems. Trial registration ChiCTR, ChiCTR2200056321. Registered 3 February 2022, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=151348

Accuracy of implant placement with computer-aided static, dynamic, and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

“…4 . Overall, the nineteen RCTs [ 12 , 22 , 26 , 42 , 54 , 59 , 64 – 66 , 69 , 72 , 74 – 77 , 79 – 82 ] were assessed using RoB-2. Nine presented a “low risk” of bias, while eight presented “some concerns”.…”

The safety of maxillary sinus floor elevation and the accuracy of implant placement using dynamic navigation

“…In recent years, the DN has been increasingly used to assist surgeons to improve the precision of surgery [ 9 , 10 ]. Studies have indicated that the accuracy of DN is similar to that of a static guide in assisting implant placement [ 17 – 19 ], and both of which are better than that of the free hand [ 20 – 23 ].…”

“…Dynamic navigation (DN) has been applied in implant surgery as an effectively preventative measure to reduce the deviation of implant placement [ 9 , 10 ]. DN can consistently track the 3D real-time position of the implant drills and sinus floor combined with imported Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data, enable safe and accuracy location of the entry point and visualize implant placement as the planned position.…”

The impacts of registration‐and‐fixation device positioning on the performance of implant placement assisted by dynamic computer‐aided surgery: A randomized controlled trial

“…The most widely utilized MPR strategy when performing dental implant placement relies on the utilization of a U‐shaped tube device (Feng et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Wu, Ma, & Sun, 2023; Wu, Xue, et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2023; Yan et al., 2023). Nevertheless, a novel approach has been devised wherein a dual‐purpose registration‐and‐fixation apparatus was developed, incorporating three reflecting patches (Wu & Sun, 2022).…”