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

Abstract

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

Accuracy of implant placement with a combined use of static and dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial

“…When the levels indicated by the K-means classification are applied as thresholds in the currently available literature on CAIS, the combination of static and navigation CAIS as applied in this study produced the smallest average deviation reported so far (Aydemir & Arısan, 2020;Block et al, 2017;Kaewsiri et al, 2019;Smitkarn et al, 2019;Sun et al, 2020;Tahmaseb et al, 2018;Wei et al, 2022;Wu et al, 2020;Yimarj et al, 2020).…”

“…Thereafter, static CAIS utilizes a surgical guide 3D printing in resin to transfer the virtually planned implant position to the surgical field, while dynamic CAIS systems utilize dynamic navigation, where the actual position of the drill is projected on the patient's radiographic anatomy in real time on a screen. Both static and dynamic CAIS systems have been assessed in multiple clinical scenarios from a single implant to fully edentulous patients with comparable outcomes in terms of accuracy and precision (Jaemsuwan et al, 2022; Kaewsiri et al, 2019; Smitkarn et al, 2019; Wei et al, 2022; Yimarj et al, 2020). Although both techniques can significantly reduce deviation when compared with freehand placement (Tahmaseb et al, 2014), they too suffer from different limitations and sources of error.…”

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

“…CAIS system nowadays typically contains static and dynamic technological pathways [ 18 ]. Clinical evidence has proved that both systems have currently achieved significantly higher accuracy of implant placement than the freehand protocol [ 6 , 7 , 13 , 19 ].…”

“…However, these in vitro studies were conducted in cadavers providing better visual field and operation access and being absent for intraoral patient conditions. Shimin Wei et al reported that the global deviation at entry and apex was 1.01 mm and 0.88 mm in the immediate implant placement using dynamic CAIS protocol [ 7 ]. However, there were only 12 patients involved.…”

“…Precision on the accuracy of the immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone is highly technically sensitive [ 4 – 6 ]. The existence of the irregular alveolar bone plate and the slope of the extraction socket interferes with proper visualization of the exact implant site [ 7 ]. The conventional freehand protocol makes it difficult to control the palatal bone’s resistance to ensure implant placement in the right location and orientation during the operation.…”