Computer-assisted Implant Surgery Research Articles

Impact of digital technologies on implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: A scoping review.

For over three decades, digital technologies have been used in Implant Dentistry, beginning with the introduction of planning software for Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (S-CAIS). During this time, this field has witnessed the emergence of diverse methodologies and a proliferation of technological advancements. Today, S-CAIS is a widely adopted procedure for the placement of dental implants in both partially and fully edentulous patients, with Dynamic Computer-Assisted Surgery (D-CAIS) and Robotic-Assisted Implant Surgery (RAIS) rapidly gaining attention among dental professionals. The continuous advancements in this arena are not merely indicative of technological progress; they represent a steadfast dedication to refining precision, enhancing efficiency, and fostering innovation with the goal of optimizing patient outcomes in dental implantology. The purpose of the following review is to meticulously examine the spectrum of digital technologies available and to describe their protocols, advantages, and shortcomings as well as to evaluate their accuracy in implant surgery in patients with complete edentulism. A scoping review was performed following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) protocols, leveraging the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework to construct the research question and determine the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two hundred and sixty-seven records were identified for screening. After applying all the screening criteria, 41 articles were included for review and qualitative data analysis. S-CAIS, D-CAIS, and RAIS were identified as the main technologies for computer assisted implant surgery. Their applications, characteristics, protocols and levels of accuracy were compared and described. Taking into consideration the limitations of this study, S-CAIS appears to be the most applied and validated technology in implant surgery for fully edentulous patients followed by D-CAIS and RAIS being these last two promising initiatives in the field. Despite having similar levels of accuracy, the overall comparison showed a slightly higher values in RAIS followed by D-CAIS and S-CAIS.

Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.

Background and Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis undertake a comparison of studies that examine the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant placement in relation to static computer-assisted implant surgery (SCAIS), dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (DCAIS), and freehand procedures. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the precision of robot-assisted dental implant placement and its comparative efficacy in relation to other placement techniques. Methods: The guidelines recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used to organize and compose this review. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane) were systematically searched for pertinent articles. Articles were selected following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the selected articles were performed. Results: The initial electronic search resulted in 1087 hits. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five articles were selected for qualitative analysis, out of which three were considered for quantitative analysis. Three parameters were considered for accuracy evaluation (angular, coronal, and apical deviation). The mean angular deviation was -1.22 degrees (95% CI, -1.06--1.39), the mean coronal deviation was -0.15 mm (95% CI, -0.24--0.07), and the mean apical deviation was -0.19 mm (95% CI, -0.27--0.10). Conclusions: The robotic implant system was found to have significantly lower angular deviations and insignificantly lower coronal and apical deviations compared to DCAIS. Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that robot-assisted implant placement in resin models permits higher accuracy compared to DCAIS and SCAIS systems. However, due to the limited number of comparative studies with high heterogeneity, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Further research is necessary to confirm the clinical application of robotics in implant surgery.

Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on improving accuracy of dental implant placement using Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS)

Tooth loss is one of the most common oral health problems, and may affect mastication, phonetics, aesthetics, and quality of life. Dental implant placement is an effective procedure to replace tooth loss. Dental implant placement techniques using freehand surgery procedures increase potential failure related to position, angle, and depth of insertion with 6.42% failure prevalence. The accuracy of installing dental implants through freehand protocol depends on the ability and experience of the doctor. New innovations such as using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) have been developed to improve the accuracy of dental implant placement. This article review uses a method finding theories from research journals and case reports with keywords "dental implant", "artificial intelligence", "computer-assisted surgery" on Google Scholar and Pubmed, five (5) research journals and one (1) case reports met requirements to be discussed. Application Artificial Intelligence (AI) in CAIS, through 3D Standard Tessellation Language (STL) planning on Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) segmentation and alignment with Intra-Oral Scanner (IOS). 3D planning is a holographic environment. CAIS are divided into static and dynamic. The static procedure performed by printing stereolithographic guide from the dental implant placement for the operator, the dynamic procedure when the operator sees in real-time the position, angulation, and drilling depth on a screen. The results showed that there was a slight deviation between the position, angulation, and depth of the implant during planning and post-surgery. Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications using Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) can improve the accuracy of dental implant placement.

The accuracy of implant placement using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous arches: A prospective controlled clinical study.

To compare the accuracy of implant position, using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), with either static, dynamic, or freehand implant placement, in fully edentulous arches. Twenty-one patients with a total of 88 fixtures were included. Implants were divided equally into four groups: a combination of static and dynamic CAIS (SD group), static CAIS (S group), dynamic CAIS (D group), and freehand placement (FH group). Angular deviation, as well as the 3D platform and apex deviations, were measured for all groups. Furthermore, the direction of implant deviation was recorded and compared. The FH group showed significantly more deviation compared to all groups, considering all the aspects, and at both the implant platform and apex. A significant difference in angular deviation between the SD and S groups (p < .001), and between the SD and D groups (p < .001) was noted, favoring the SD group. When evaluating implant distribution, the FH group showed a tendency towards the buccal, apical, and distal directions at platform and apex, while in the D group, implants shifted more to the buccal. In contrast, the SD group did not show a trend toward any specific direction. The S and SD groups did not show a statistical significance considering any direction. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS increases the accuracy of implant placement in fully edentulous arches when compared with either static or dynamic CAIS alone, as well as freehand placement.

Accuracy of the Yakebot dental implant robotic system versus fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery template in edentulous jaw implantation: A preliminary clinical study.

To compare the accuracy of the Yakebot dental implant robotic system with that of fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) template in edentulous implantation. Thirteen patients with edentulous were recruited and divided into two groups: the Yake robotic system group (experimental) (n = 5) and the CAIS group (control) (n = 8). Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately, and the 3-dimensional positions of implants were obtained and compared with that in the preoperative design. The comparison showed platform, apical, depth, and angular deviations. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 84 implants (36 in the robotic group and 48 in the CAIS group) were placed. The mean deviation at the implant platform, apex, depth, and angle in the CAIS group was 1.37 ± 0.72 mm, 1.28 ± 0.68 mm, 0.88 ± 0.47 mm, and 3.47 ± 2.02°, respectively. However, the mean deviation at the implant platform, apex, depth, and angle in the robotic group was 0.65 ± 0.25 mm, 0.65 ± 0.22 mm, 0.49 ± 0.24 mm, and 1.43 ± 1.18°, respectively. Significant differences in the four types of deviation (p < 0.05) between the two groups were observed. The accuracy of robotic system in edentulous implant placement was superior to that of the CAIS template, suggesting that robotic system is more accurate, safe, and flexible, can be considered a promising treatment in clinical practice.

Accuracy of dental implant placement with a robotic system in partially edentulous patients: A prospective, single-arm clinical trial.

This clinical study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant positions using a robotic system in partially edentulous patients. Twenty-eight partially edentulous patients received 31 implants using the robotic system. Deviations between the planned and placed implants were calculated after surgery. The deviations were compared with objective performance goals (OPGs) from reported studies of fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) and dynamic CAIS. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the possible effects of the type and side of the arch, implant location, and implant dimensions on the deviations. The evaluation of 31 implants resulted in a mean angle deviation of 2.81 ± 1.13° (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.40-3.23°), while the 3D deviations at the implant shoulder and apex were 0.53 ± 0.23 mm (95% CI 0.45-0.62 mm) and 0.53 ± 0.24 mm (95% CI 0.44-0.61 mm), respectively. The upper limits of the 95% CI of 3D deviations were lower than those of the corresponding OPGs; however, the angle deviation was similar to that of the OPG. No statistically significant differences were found for the type and side of the arch, implant location, and implant dimensions to the deviations (p > .05). The robotic system appears to achieve higher accuracy in implant positions than static and dynamic CAIS in partially edentulous patients (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300067587).

Training of novice surgeons using dynamic computer assisted dental implant surgery: An exploratory randomized trial

Dynamic Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) systems have been shown to improve accuracy of implant placement, thus training in the use of such systems is becoming increasingly important. There is a scarcity of research on how to implement dynamic CAIS training in the settings of postgraduate university education. To determine the effectiveness of two modes of CAIS training programs on motor skill acquisition of novice surgeons. Thirty-six postgraduate students without experience in dynamic CAIS systems were randomly assigned to a distributed training program (3 training sessions over 3 days) or a massed training (3 training sessions over the same day). A post-test involving the placement of one implant was conducted for both groups, 7 days after completion of the training. Surgical time and implant accuracy were recorded and analyzed, using independent t-tests, with 0.05 significant level. Both groups reached the accuracy benchmarks expected by current standards in the use of CAIS. No significant differences with regards to accuracy were found between the groups, but a trend was documented favoring performance of distributed (mean difference-0.4, 95% confidence interval-0.7-0.1) in the accuracy at platform level. Distributed training students performed faster than massed for the third trial (mean difference-95.0, 95% confidence interval-178.8 to -11.2). Novice students reached the accuracy benchmarks with the use of CAIS through both a massed and a distributed training program, while there was a strong but marginally not significant trend for higher accuracy in the distributed group. Students who received the training in the distributed format over the process of different days, performed faster. Trial registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry: https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20230109002. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization.

Accuracy of dental implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: An in vitro study

ObjectivesThis in-vitro study compared the accuracy of implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) at two implant sites. MethodsPartially edentulous maxillary models were 3D-printed, and two implants (Straumann TL RN 4.1 × 10 mm) were inserted in FDI positions 15 and 16 per model using two CAIS approaches (10 models per approach). A three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction tool was used for implant planning, surgical guide design, and measuring implant positioning accuracy. In static CAIS, the implants were placed with 3D-printed surgical guides (n = 20); in dynamic CAIS, real-time navigation was performed (n = 20). Primary outcomes were defined as coronal and apical global deviation as well as angular deviations and deviation comparison between implants placed at positions 15 and 16; the secondary outcome was the bi-directional deviation in mesial-distal, buccal-palatal, and apical-coronal direction. ResultsThe mean coronal and apical global deviation for static CAIS for implant positions 15 were 0.88±0.31 mm and 1.45±0.37 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.67±0.31 mm, and 1.07±0.32 mm, respectively. In dynamic CAIS, the mean coronal and apical global deviation for implant position 15 were 0.97±0.32 mm and 1.58±0.56 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.79±0.29 mm and 1 ± 0.37 mm, respectively. Buccal-palatal deviation was higher using static CAIS, and mesial-distal deviation was higher in dynamic CAIS. In position 15, mesial-distal deviation at the apex and the platform were lower in static approaches than in dynamic ones. In implant position 16, buccal-palatal deviation at the apex was lower in the dynamic group than with static ones. For bi-directional analysis, buccal-palatal deviation at the platform (P = 0.0028) and mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0056) were significantly lower in molar sites using static CAIS. Mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0246) revealed significantly lower values in position 16 following dynamic CAIS. ConclusionsBoth static and dynamic CAIS resulted in accurate implant placement. However, dynamic CAIS exhibited higher deviation in the mesial direction in an in-vitro setting. In addition, the implant site affects the accuracy of both CAIS approaches. Clinical significanceBoth static and dynamic CAIS demonstrate high accuracy for guided implant placement..

In Vivo and In Vitro Accuracy Analysis of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in an Edentulous Patient

Background: Recently, intraoral scanning (IOS) has been proposed as a new tool to evaluate the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS); however, further research is needed to improve the precision of IOS for full-arch impressions. The purpose of the study was to assess the accuracy of s-CAIS in an edentulous patient either in vivo or in vitro with two different evaluation techniques and to investigate if their results are comparable. Methods: A patient with terminal dentition was selected and four implants were placed using s-CAIS with a bone-supported stackable template. Segmentation used for designing a template was 3D printed, and then four implants were placed in the model following the same protocol as for s-CAIS. The model then underwent cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and laboratory scanning to evaluate its accuracy. Data were uploaded to specific software, and accuracy values were automatically generated. Results: A statistical analysis was not attempted since all measurements were performed on the same patient and model. When descriptively comparing the accuracy of the two methods of treatment evaluation in the in vitro scenario, comparable results were obtained between IOS and CBCT, except for the angle. Conclusions: As the intraoral scanning procedure in fully edentulous patients is not yet clinically validated, utilizing CBCT can still be recommended for the accurate evaluation of computer-assisted implant placement.

Influence of alveolar ridge morphology and guide-hole design on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery with two implant macro-designs: An in vitro study

ObjectivesThe primary aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of alveolar ridge morphologies on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS). The secondary aims were to evaluate the influence of guide-hole design and implant macro-design on the accuracy of the final implant position. MethodsEighteen standardized partially edentulous maxillary models with two different types of alveolar ridge morphologies were used. Each model was scanned via cone beam computer tomography prior to implant placement and scanned with a laboratory scanner prior to and following implant placement using sCAIS. The postsurgical scans were superimposed on the initial treatment planning position to measure the deviations between planned and postsurgical implant positions. ResultsSeventy-two implants were equally distributed to the study groups. Implants placed in healed alveolar ridges showed significantly lower mean deviations at the crest (0.36 ± 0.17 mm), apex (0.69 ± 0.36 mm), and angular deviation (1.86 ± 0.99°), compared to implants placed in fresh extraction sites (0.80 ± 0.29 mm, 1.61 ± 0.59 mm, and 4.33 ± 1.87°; all p<0.0001). Implants placed with a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated significantly lower apical (1.02 ± 0.66 mm) and angular (2.72 ± 1.93°) deviations compared to those placed with manufacturer's sleeves (1.27 ± 0.67 mm; p = 0.01, and 3.46 ± 1.9°; p = 0.02). Deep-threaded tapered bone level implants exhibited significantly lower deviations at the crest (0.49 ± 0.28 mm), apex (0.97 ± 0.63 mm), and angular deviations (2.63 ± 1.85°) compared to shallow-threaded parallel-walled bone level implants (0.67 ± 0.34 mm; p = 0.0005, 1.32 ± 0.67 mm; p = 0.003, and 3.56 ± 1.93°; p = 0.01). ConclusionsThe accuracy of the final implant position with sCAIS is determined by the morphology of the alveolar ridge, the design of the guide holes, and the macrodesign of the implant. Clinical SignificanceHigher accuracy in the final implant position was observed with implants placed in healed alveolar ridge morphologies, in implants with deep-threaded tapered macro-design, and when sleeveless surgical guide holes were used.

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

PurposeThis 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsFor 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).ConclusionsThis 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

Can computer-assisted implant surgery improve clinical outcomes and reduce the frequency and intensity of complications in implant dentistry? A critical review.

Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), either static or dynamic, is well documented to significantly improve the accuracy of implant placement. Whether the increased accuracy leads to a corresponding improvement in clinical outcomes has not yet been systematically investigated. The aim of this critical review was to investigate whether the use of CAIS can lead to reduction of complications as well as improved clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when compared with conventional freehand implant surgery. A comprehensive online search was conducted to identify studies where implants were installed with static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS)or dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery(d-CAIS) or combinations of the two, either compared with conventional free-hand implant placement or not. Seventy-seven studies were finally included in qualitative analysis, while data from three studies assessing postsurgical pain were suitable for a meta-analysis. Only a small number of the available studies were comparative. The current evidence does not suggest any difference with regard to intraoperative complications, immediate postsurgical healing, osseointegration success, and survival of implants placed with CAIS or freehand protocols. Intraoperative and early healing events as reported by patients in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) did not differ significantly between CAIS used with flap elevation and conventional implant placement. There is limited evidence that increased accuracy of placement with CAIS is correlated with superior esthetic outcomes. Use of CAIS does not significantly reduce the length of surgeries in cases of single implants and partially edentulous patients, although there appears to be a more favorable impact in fully edentulous patients. Although CAIS alone does not seem to improve healing and the clinical and PRO, to the extent that it can increase the utilization of flapless surgery and predictability of immediacy protocols, its use may indirectly lead to substantial improvements in all of the above parameters.

Comparison of the accuracy of implant position among freehand implant placement, static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: a non-randomized prospective study

The optimal implant position is a critical factor for long-term success in fully edentulous patients. Implants can be placed through conventional freehand, static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), or dynamic CAIS protocols, but at present there is very limited clinical evidence on their accuracy in fully edentulous patients. This study was performed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using three protocols in fully edentulous patients. Thirteen patients received 60 implants with the freehand (n = 20), static CAIS (n = 20), or dynamic CAIS (n = 20) protocol. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography was utilized to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement in relation to the planned optimal position. The data were analysed by ANCOVA followed by Bonferroni analysis. The mean angular deviation (standard deviation) in the freehand, static CAIS, and dynamic CAIS groups was 10.09° (4.64°), 4.98° (2.16°), and 5.75° (2.09°), respectively. The mean three-dimensional deviation (standard deviation) at the implant platform in the freehand, static CAIS, and dynamic CAIS groups was 3.48 (2.00) mm, 1.40 (0.72) mm, and 1.73 (0.43) mm, while at the implant apex it was 3.60 (2.11) mm, 1.66 (0.61) mm, and 1.86 (0.82) mm, respectively. No difference in terms of accuracy was found between static and dynamic CAIS; both demonstrated significantly higher accuracy when compared to the freehand protocol in fully edentulous patients.

Influence of bone density on the accuracy of artificial intelligence–guided implant surgery: An in vitro study

Statement of problemArtificial intelligence (AI) has been found to be applicable in medical tests and diagnostics. However, studies on the application of AI technology in oral implantology are lacking. In addition, whether bone density affects the accuracy of guided implant surgery has not been determined. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the clinical reliability of an AI-assisted implant planning software program with an in vitro model. An additional goal was to determine the effect of bone density on the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS). Material and methodsTen participants with missing mandibular left first molars were selected for analysis, and surgical fully guided templates were designed by using an AI implant planning software program. Jaw models were produced in 3 filling rate groups (group L: 25%; group M: 40%; group H: 55%, higher filling rate with representatives of the denser simulated bone density) by 3-dimensional (3D) printing. The preoperative and postoperative positions of the implants were compared by measuring the value of deviation through oral scanning. The mean 3D shoulder and apical and angular deviations were calculated for each group. The data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA (α=.05 corrected for multiple testing by using Bonferroni-Holm adjustment). ResultsThe mean ±standard deviation 3D shoulder and apical and angular deviations were 0.80 ±0.32 mm, 1.43 ±0.47 mm, and 3.68 ±1.30 degrees. These values were lower than the clinical safety distance of the fully guided implant template. A significantly lower mean 3D apical deviation (1.12 ±0.33 mm, P=.023) and angular deviation (2.81 ±1.11 degrees, P=.018) were observed in group L than in group H (1.68 ±0.37 mm, 4.32 ±0.99 degrees). However, no significant differences were found among the 3 groups in 3D deviation at the shoulder (P>.05). ConclusionsAI implant planning software program could design the ideal implant position through self-learning. The accuracy of the AI-assisted designed implant template in this study indicated its clinical reliability. Higher bone density led to increased implant deviations.

Comparison of Implant Placement Accuracy in Healed and Fresh Extraction Sockets between Static and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery Navigation Systems: A Model-Based Evaluation.

The aim of this model-base study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in a fresh extraction socket and healed ridge. A randomized in vitro study was conducted. Twenty 3D-printed maxillary models and 80 implants were used. One experienced researcher placed the implants using either the static navigation or dynamic navigation system. Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative CBCT on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were performed. In the fresh sockets, the mean deviation was 1.24 ± 0.26 mm (entry point), 1.69 ± 0.34 mm (apical point), and 3.44 ± 1.06° (angle discrepancy) in the static CAIS group, and 0.60 ± 0.29 mm, 0.78 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.47 ± 1.09° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. In the healed ridge, the mean deviation was 1.09 ± 0.17 mm and 1.40 ± 0.30 mm, and 2.12 ± 1.11° in the static CAIS group, and 0.80 ± 0.29 mm, 0.98 ± 0.37 mm, and 1.69 ± 0.76° in the dynamic CIAS group, respectively. Compared with the static CAIS system, the dynamic CAIS system resulted in significantly lower entry and apical errors in both fresh sockets and healed ridges. Differences in bone morphology therefore seem to have little effect on accuracy in the dynamic CAIS group.

Accuracy of dental implant placement using augmented reality-based navigation, static computer assisted implant surgery, and the free-hand method: An in vitro study

Objectives: This in vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant placement in model surgeries carried out by implementation of three different methods.Methods: An in vitro study was conducted on 3D printed study models randomly assigned to three study groups. In Group 1, model surgeries were assisted by augmented reality (AR)based dynamic navigation (Innooral System, Innoimplant Ltd, Budapest, Hungary). In Group 2, implants were placed with a free-hand method, and in Group 3, static Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) was used (coDiagnostiX software, version 10.4 Dental Wings, Montreal, CA, USA). A total of 48 dental implants (Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were placed (16 implants in four models per study group). The primary outcome variables were angular deviation, coronal, and apical global deviation. These were calculated for all implants based on preoperative registration of the surgical plan and postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstruction.Results: The accuracy of implant placement using AR-based dynamic navigation showed no significant difference compared to static CAIS (angular deviation, 4.09 ± 2.79° and 3.21 ± 1.52°; coronal deviation, 1.27 ± 0.40 mm and 1.31 ± 0.42 mm; and apical global deviation 1.34 ± 0.41 mm and 1.38 ± 0.41 mm). Global deviation results were significantly lower with AR-based dynamic navigation than with the free-hand approach (coronal and apical global deviation of 1.93 ± 0.79 mm and 2.28 ± 0.74 mm, respectively).Conclusions: Implant positioning accuracy of AR-based dynamic navigation was comparable to that of static CAIS and superior to that obtained by the free-hand approach.Clinical Significance: Implementing Augmented Reality based dynamic Computer Assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS) in model surgeries may allow to obtain an implant positioning accuracy comparable to that provided by static CAIS, and superior to that obtained through the free-hand approach. Further clinical studies are necessary to determine the feasibility of AR-based dynamic navigation.

Complete-Arch Implant Rehabilitation with the Aid of Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery and Transitional Implants: A New Digital Approach

This case report describes a new digital workflow for computer-assisted implant surgery in an edentulous patient using transitional implants to support a fixed surgical template and interim prosthesis. The accuracy of the final implant position using the described protocol was evaluated and compared to the outcomes obtained using other types of surgical templates. This novel digital approach appears to enhance the accuracy of implant positioning for edentulous patients and seems to be comparable to a tooth-supported surgical template.

Accuracy of Different Surgical Guide Designs for Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: An In Vitro Study.

The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of (1) the different surgical guide designs and (2) implant placement location on the accuracy of fully guided implant placement in single edentulous sites using an in vitro study model. Forty-five partially edentulous models were scanned and divided into 3 groups: group 1, tooth-supported full-arch surgical guide; group 2, 3 different tooth-supported shortened surgical guides (SSGs); and group 3, tooth-supported full-arch surgical guide with a crossbar. All surgical guides were printed and used for fully guided implant placement. A total of 180 implants (60 per group) were placed, and scan bodies were positioned on all models, and postoperative surface scan files (STL) files were obtained. Superimposition of preoperative and postoperative STL files was performed, and the accuracy of implant position was evaluated. The interaction between group and implant location was statistically significant for angle, 3D offset at the base, and at the tip (P < .001). The post-hoc tests showed a statistically significantly higher deviation for group 2 compared to group 3 for all outcomes for implants #4 (P < .05) and #7 (P < .05). There was also a statistically significant difference in all outcomes between groups 1 and 3 for implant #7 (P < .05). All surgical guide designs presented satisfactory performance with clinically acceptable levels of deviation. However, SSGs presented higher accuracy for guided implant placement in a single-edentulous site, whereas a full-arch surgical guide with a crossbar presented superior outcomes when 2 or more guided implants were placed simultaneously.

Comparison of Dental Surface Image Registration and Fiducial Marker Registration: An In Vivo Accuracy Study of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery.

This study compared the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) planned through dental surface image registration and fiducial marker registration. Stone models of 30 patients were converted into digital dental casts by using a desktop scanner. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed and superimposed to the digital dental casts with two methods: matching the dental surface images or matching the fiducial markers on a stereolithographic radiographic template. Following the implant planning, stereolithographic surgical guides were fabricated, and 56 fully guided implants were inserted by the same doctor. Deviations between planned and inserted implants were measured and compared using postoperative CBCT images. After adjustment for other potential influencing factors, compared with the fiducial marker registration group, significantly larger mean lateral deviations were noted in the dental surface registration group at both the implant platform and apex (p = 0.0188 and 0.0371, respectively). However, the mean lateral deviations for the dental surface registration (0.83 ± 0.51 mm at implant platform and 1.24 ± 0.68 mm at implant apex) were comparable to the literature. In conclusion, our findings indicate that although sCAIS planned using dental surface image registration was not statistically as accurate as that using fiducial marker registration, its accuracy was satisfactory for clinical use.

Comparison of the accuracy of implant placement using different drilling systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery: A simulation-based experimental study.

Different designs of surgical drilling systems have been developed for the purpose of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS), but there is at present little understanding of how design principles affect the accuracy of implant placement. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement among five drilling systems of sCAIS in a controlled experimental setting. Twenty-five 3D printed models with two edentulous bilateral premolar spaces were allocated to five different drilling systems: group A: sleeve-in-sleeve, group B: sleeve-in-sleeve with self-locking, group C: mounted sleeve-on-drill, group D: integrated sleeve-on-drill with metal sleeve in the guide, group E: integrated sleeve-on-drill without metal sleeve. Models were scanned with CBCT and optical scanner. All implants were digitally planned and 10 implants placed with sCAIS in each group. Postoperative 3D deviation of placed vs planned position was measured by means of platform, apex and angular deviation. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test (P ≤ .05). Pairwise comparisons were tested with Dunn's test with adjusted P values. The overall platform deviation ranged from 0.42 ± 0.12 mm (group B) to 1.18 ± 0.19 mm (group C). The overall apex deviation ranged from 0.76 ± 0.22 mm (group B) to 1.95 ± 0.48 mm (group D). The overall angular deviation ranged from 2.50 ± 0.89 degree (group B) to 5.30 ± 1.04 degree (group E). Group A and B showed significantly less angular deviation than groups D and E (P < .05). There was no statistically significant differences in all parameters between group A and B, as well as between group D and E (P > .05). Significant differences were found with regards to accuracy among the five sCAIS systems tested, suggesting that the drilling protocol, the devices used and the design principles of the guides could influence the accuracy of implant placement.