Do Image Modality and Registration Method Influence the Accuracy of Craniofacial Navigation?

Accuracy of a real‐time surgical navigation system for the placement of quad zygomatic implants in the severe atrophic maxilla: A pilot clinical study

“…Because the severe atrophic maxilla that underwent an operation continued to have limited bone for placing miniscrews, all miniscrews could only be placed on the front maxilla, mid‐palatal suture, and maxillary tuberosity regions. To decrease the deviations of registration, bone markers (miniscrews) were chosen for all patients . Moreover, the clinical operation skills where the surgeon should perform the drilling procedure following the trajectory from the entry to exit point.…”

“…The deviations between the planned and placed positions probably resulted from several factors, which are as follows: (1) the imaging registration (the deviations were not only determined by the accuracy of marker localization, they were also influenced by their number and distribution) 30,31 and (2) were chosen for all patients. 35,36 Moreover, the clinical operation skills where the surgeon should perform the drilling procedure following the trajectory from the entry to exit point.…”

Evaluation of Three Different Validation Procedures regarding the Accuracy of Template-Guided Implant Placement: An In Vitro Study

“…The potential error due to scanning and three‐dimensional volume rendering was quantified as 0.25 mm on average . Furthermore, no significant differences between cone beam CT‐ and multislice CT‐based three‐dimensional images or models showing an appropriate accuracy for computer‐aided dentistry were registered by recent studies . Nevertheless, Horwitz and colleagues reported a planning procedure‐related inaccuracy of an average of 0.32 to 0.49 mm .…”

“…35 Furthermore, no significant differences between cone beam CT-and multislice CT-based three-dimensional images or models showing an appropriate accuracy for computer-aided dentistry were registered by recent studies. [36][37][38][39][40] Nevertheless, Horwitz and colleagues reported a planning procedure-related inaccuracy of an average of 0.32 to 0.49 mm. 33 The potential manufacturing error of the stereolithographically manufactured surgical template was calculated to be within a range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm.…”

Different techniques of static/dynamic guided implant surgery: modalities and indications

“…Under ideal conditions, registration templates or external registration frames may provide registration accuracy similar to that for bone markers, with mean target registration errors of 0.93-0.94 mm for all three methods (82). However, registration templates require a repositioning procedure and thus may become lost or are misfitted at the time of reposition-ing (71,75).…”