Accuracy of Dynamic Guided Implant Surgery as Compared

Accuracy of Dynamic Guided Implant Surgery as Compared to Static Implant Surgery ARAM SADDA, DDS; JOHN VORRASI, DDS; DANIEL CASTILLO, MLIS; ANTONIA KOLOKYTHAS, DDS, MSc, MSed, FACS DISCUSSION OBJECTIVES Based on these results, we suggest that there is no clinical significance between implants placed with dynamic navigation versus static surgery. Both are acceptable for implant placement and are superior in accuracy than the freehanded technique. However, dynamic navigation may be useful for multiple implant placement and allows for more adaptability in the event of deficient bone or lack of primary stability, when needing to change the planned implant location. Static surgery may not allow for these adaptations. Dynamic guided surgery may also allow for real time visualization of critical anatomic structures. However, there is limited data to support this theory and more evidence is needed in order to establish the efficacy of dynamic navigation versus static surgery regarding accuracy with respect to linear and angular deviation. Fig 2. Handpiece Tracker METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using Pub. Med, Cochrane, Web of Science, clinicaltrials. gov, and Embase without time limitations. The following Me. SH terms were used: “Dental Implants, Dental Implantation, Surgery, Computer -Assisted, Computer-Aided Design, Dynamic, Virtual, Template, Navigation Guided, Deviation, Coronal, Apical, Accuracy. ” We established the following inclusion criteria: In vivo studies on human subjects only, three-dimensional imaging must be obtained pre- and post-procedure. Based on preliminary results of high-quality articles, the following data was obtained. Dynamic surgery: angular deviation (mean of 2. 91 degrees), linear deviation at the implant platform (mean of 0. 76 mm), and linear deviation at the implant apex (mean of 1. 04 mm). Static surgery: angular deviation (mean of 3. 08 degrees), linear deviation at the implant platform (mean of 0. 36 mm), and linear deviation at the implant apex (mean of 0. 98 mm). Fig 3. Fiducial Clip Table 2. Static Guided RESULTS Table 1. Dynamic Guided Navigation software for dental implants is a relatively new technology that is controversial and limited in its use. Currently, the most common form of implant placement is via static surgery, which entails full-guided, half-guided, or freehanded implant placement. This purpose of this systematic review is to compare the accuracy of dental implant placement with regards to linear and angular deviation in dynamic versus static surgery. We hypothesize that there is increased accuracy using dynamic navigation versus static implant surgery with respect to linear and angular deviation. We define navigation surgery by using threedimensional imaging software for real time monitoring during surgery. Static surgery is defined as guided surgery utilizing a prefabricated template during the procedure. Patients w REFERENCES Fig 1. Mean Deviations Fig 4. Navigation System Sun T-M, Lee H-E, Lan T-H. Comparing Accuracy of Implant Installation with a Navigation System (NS), a Laboratory Guide (LG), NS with LG, and Freehand Drilling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(6): 2107 Aydemir, CA, Arısan, V. Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2020; 31: 255– 263. Stefanelli LV, Mandelaris GA, De. Groot BS, Gambarini G, De Angelis F, Di Carlo S. Accuracy of a Novel Trace-Registration Method for Dynamic Navigation Surgery. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 May/Jun; 40(3): 427 -435. Pellegrino G, Taraschi V, Andrea Z, Ferri A, Marchetti C. Dynamic navigation: a prospective clinical trial to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement. Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22(2): 139 -147. Kaewsiri, D, Panmekiate, S, Subbalekha, K, Mattheos, N, Pimkhaokham, A. The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2019; 30: 505– 514 Block MS, Emery RW, Lank K, Ryan J. Implant Placement Accuracy Using Dynamic Navigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Jan/Feb; 32(1): 92 -99.