The accuracy and learning curves of active and passive dynamic navigation-guided dental implant surgery: An in vitro study

Accuracy of dental implant placement using different dynamic navigation and robotic systems: an in vitro study

Computer-aided implant surgery has undergone continuous development in recent years. In this study, active and passive systems of dynamic navigation were divided into active dynamic navigation system group and passive dynamic navigation system group (ADG and PDG), respectively. Active, passive and semi-active implant robots were divided into active robot group, passive robot group and semi-active robot group (ARG, PRG and SRG), respectively. Each group placed two implants (FDI tooth positions 31 and 36) in a model 12 times. The accuracy of 216 implants in 108 models were analysed. The coronal deviations of ADG, PDG, ARG, PRG and SRG were 0.85 ± 0.17 mm, 1.05 ± 0.42 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.40 ± 0.16 mm and 0.33 ± 0.14 mm, respectively. The apical deviations of the five groups were 1.11 ± 0.23 mm, 1.07 ± 0.38 mm, 0.29 ± 0.15 mm, 0.50 ± 0.19 mm and 0.36 ± 0.16 mm, respectively. The axial deviations of the five groups were 1.78 ± 0.73°, 1.99 ± 1.20°, 0.61 ± 0.25°, 1.04 ± 0.37° and 0.42 ± 0.18°, respectively. The coronal, apical and axial deviations of ADG were higher than those of ARG, PRG and SRG (all P < 0.001). Similarly, the coronal, apical and axial deviations of PDG were higher than those of ARG, PRG, and SRG (all P < 0.001). Dynamic and robotic computer-aided implant surgery may show good implant accuracy in vitro. However, the accuracy and stability of implant robots are higher than those of dynamic navigation systems.

Learning curve of dynamic navigation-assisted zygomatic implant surgery: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (dCAZIS) has been reported to provide clinical efficacy with high accuracy and low risk of complications. However, the learning curve before performing dCAZIS effectively is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to explore the learning curve of dCAZIS in dentists with different levels of experience in implant dentistry and navigation surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six senior dental students were randomly divided into 3 groups for initial training (FH-CI group: pretraining on freehand conventional implant surgery; FH-ZI group: pretraining on freehand ZI surgery; DN-CI group: pretraining on conventional implant surgery under dynamic navigation). Then, every operator conducted 6 repeated dCAZIS training sessions on edentulous 3-dimensional (3D) printed skull models and was asked to complete a self-report questionnaire after each training session. A total of 36 postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans with 144 ZI osteotomy site preparations were obtained and superimposed over the preoperative design for accuracy measurements. The operation time, 3D deviations, and results of the self-reports were recorded. Comparisons among groups were analyzed with independent-sample Kruskal-Wallis tests (α=.05), and correlations between study outcomes and the number of practices were calculated.

RESULTS

Operator experience and increased practice times did not significantly affect the accuracy of dCAZIS (P>.05). However, the operation time varied among groups (P<.001), and significantly shortened with more practice, reaching 11.51 ±1.68 minutes at the fifth attempt in the FH-CI group (P<.001 compared with the first practice), 14.48 ±3.07 minutes at the third attempt in the FH-ZI group (P=.038), and 8.68 ±0.58 minutes at the sixth attempt in the DN-CI group (P<.001). All groups reached their own learning curve plateau stage within 6 practice sessions. As the number of practice sessions increased, the results from the self-report questionnaires gradually improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Among dentists with different levels of experience in implant dentistry and navigation surgery, dCAZIS was found to have a learning curve with respect to operation time but not implant accuracy. Experience in ZI surgery had little impact on the learning curve of dCAZIS, but experience in navigation surgery was a key factor.

How palatal vault morphology and screw length influence the accuracy of dynamic computer-guided orthodontic miniscrew insertion. A prospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of palatal vault morphology and screw length on the accuracy of miniscrew insertion in dynamic computer-assisted surgery (d-CAS).

METHODS

Twenty-four subjects were allocated into three groups, according to their palatal vault morphology (Group A: medium; Group B: steep/high; Group C: low/flat) and the length of miniscrew used. For each subject, two miniscrews were inserted using a dynamic navigation system. To assess the accuracy of insertion, a postoperative CBCT was performed, and the pre- and post-operative scans were superimposed. Five variables were evaluated: Entry-3D, Entry-2D, Apex-3D, Apex-vertical and angular deviation. Descriptive statistics, Shapiro-wilk, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests were used for the statistical analysis. The level of significance was P ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean angular deviation values revealed strong discrepancies amongst the groups (Group A:7.11°±5.70°; Group B:13.30°±7.76°; Group C:4.92°±3.15°) and significant differences were found regarding the Apex-3D (P = 0.036) and angular deviations (P = 0.008). A Dunn's test revealed differences in angular deviation between the medium and high/steep palate group (P = 0.004), and between low/flat and high/steep palate group (P = 0.01) but did not confirm any significant difference in the Apex-3D parameter (Group A-B P = 0.10; Group B-C, P = 0.053; Group A-C, P = 1.00). No significant differences were found regarding the length of the miniscrews.

CONCLUSIONS

Palatal vault morphology is a factor that influences the accuracy of miniscrew insertion in d-CAS. In subjects with steep and high palatal vaults, insertion accuracy is lower when considering the angular deviation value. Miniscrew length does not influence accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although computer-guided surgery assists the clinician in preventing damage to nearby anatomical structures, individual anatomical variability is a crucial variable. In subjects with a high/steep palate, greater attention should be paid during the planning phase in order to allow for a wide margin from adjacent anatomical structures to achieve better outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVE

To date, it remains a challenge to conduct maxillary sinus floor elevation (MSFE) owing to heterogeneity of anatomical structures and limited operative visibility of the maxillary sinus. The aim of this study is to investigate the safety of MSFE and the accuracy of implant placement using dynamic navigation.

METHODS

Forty-two implants were placed in thirty-five patients requiring implantation in posterior maxilla with dynamic navigation. They were assigned to either lateral window sinus floor elevation (LWSFE) group (n = 22) or transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) group (n = 20) according to the residual alveolar bone height (RBH). Platform deviation, apex deviation and angular deviation between actual and planned implant placement were measured in precision evaluation software. Three deviations of two groups were compared via SPSS 22.0 software.

RESULTS

Neither accidental bleeding nor perforation of Schneiderian membrane occurred in any patients. The actual window position of LWSFE was consistent with the preoperative design. There were no significant differences in platform, apex and angular deviations between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this study the dynamic navigation harvested clinically acceptable safety of MSFE and accuracy for implant placement in posterior maxillary region. The dynamic navigation would provide the clinician with assistance in achieving precise preoperative planning and reducing complications in surgical procedures. The granular bone grafts used in the LWSFE did not significantly affection on the accuracy of the simultaneous implant placement under the guidance of dynamic navigation.

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of dynamic computer-aided surgery (dCAS) in replacing a single missing posterior tooth, we compare outcomes when using registration-and-fixation devices positioned anterior or posterior to the surgical site. Registration is performed on either the anterior or opposite posterior teeth.

METHODS

Forty individuals needing posterior single-tooth implant placement were randomly assigned to anterior or posterior registration. Nine parameters were analyzed to detect the deviations between planned and actual implant placement, using Mann-Whitney and t-tests for nonnormally and normally distributed data, respectively.

RESULTS

The overall average angular deviation for this study was 2.08 ± 1.12°, with the respective average 3D platform and apex deviations of 0.77 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.32 mm. Angular deviation values for individuals in the anterior and posterior registration groups were 1.58°(IQR: 0.98°-2.38°) and 2.25°(IQR: 1.46°-3.43°), respectively (p = .165), with 3D platform deviations of 0.81 ± 0.29 mm and 0.74 ± 0.36 mm (p = .464), as well as 3D apex deviations of 0.89 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.33 mm (p = .986). No significant variations in absolute buccolingual (platform, p = .659; apex, p = .063), apicocoronal (platform, p = .671; apex, p = .649), or mesiodistal (platform, p = .134; apex, p = .355) deviations were observed at either analyzed levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Both anterior and posterior registration approaches facilitate accurate dCAS-mediated implant placement for single missing posterior teeth. The device's placement (posterior-to or anterior-to the surgical site) did not affect the clinician's ability to achieve the planned implant location.

The Use of Dynamic Navigation Systems as a Component of Digital Dentistry

The development of dynamic navigation system (DNS) has facilitated the development of modern digital medicine. In the field of dentistry, the cutting-edge technology is garnering widespread recognition. Based on the principles of 3-dimensional visualization, virtual design, and precise motion tracking, DNS is mainly composed of a computer, a tracking system, specialized tracer instruments, and navigation software. DNS employs a workflow that begins with preoperative data acquisition and imaging data reconstruction, followed by surgical instrument calibration and spatial registration, culminating in real-time guided operations. Currently, the system has been applied in a broad spectrum of dental procedures, encompassing dental implants, oral and maxillofacial surgery (such as tooth extraction, the treatment of maxillofacial fractures, tumors, and foreign bodies, orthognathic surgery, and temporomandibular joint ankylosis surgery), intraosseous anesthesia, and endodontic treatment (including root canal therapy and endodontic surgery). These applications benefit from its enhancements in direct visualization, treatment precision, efficiency, safety, and procedural adaptability. However, the adoption of DNS is not without substantial upfront costs, required comprehensive training, additional preparatory time, and increased radiation exposure. Despite challenges, the ongoing advancements in DNS are poised to broaden its utility and substantially strengthen digital dentistry.

Accuracy and patient-centered results of marker-based and marker-free registrations for dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare implant placement accuracy and patient-centered results between the dynamic computer-assisted implant surgeries (d-CAISs) using marker-based and marker-free registration methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double-armed, single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted, in which 34 patients requiring single implant placement at the esthetic zone were randomly assigned to the marker-based (n = 17) or marker-free (n = 17) groups. The marker-based registration was performed using a splint containing radiopaque markers, while the marker-free registration used natural teeth. The primary outcome assessed implant positioning accuracy via angular and linear deviations between preoperative and postoperative implant positions in CBCT. Patients were also surveyed about the intraoperative experience and oral health impact profile (OHIP).

RESULTS

The global linear deviations at the implant platform (0.82 ± 0.28 and 0.85 ± 0.41 mm) and apex (1.28 ± 0.34 and 0.85 (IQR: 0.64-1.50) mm) for the marker-based and marker-free groups respectively showed no significant difference. However, the angular deviation of the marker-free group (2.77 ± 0.92° ) was significantly lower than the marker-based group (4.28 ± 1.58° ). There was no significant difference in the mean postoperative OHIP scores between the two groups (p = .758), with scores of 2.74 ± 1.21 for marker-based and 2.93 ± 2.18 for marker-free groups, indicating mild oral health-related impairment in both. Notably, patients in the marker-free group showed significantly higher satisfaction (p = .031) with the treatment procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

D-CAIS with a marker-free registration method for single implantation in the anterior maxilla has advantages in improving implant placement accuracy and patients' satisfaction, without generating a significant increase in clinical time and expenses.

Advancing accuracy in guided implant placement: A comprehensive meta-analysis: Meta-Analysis evaluation of the accuracy of available implant placement Methods

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to determine the accuracy of currently available computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) modalities under in vitro conditions and investigate whether these novel techniques can achieve clinically acceptable accuracy.

DATA

In vitro studies comparing the postoperative implant position with the preoperative plan were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (QUIN Tool) and a sensitivity analysis was conducted using funnel plots.

SOURCES

A systematic search was performed on April 18, 2023, using the following three databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. No filters or restrictions were applied during the search.

RESULTS

A total of 5,894 studies were included following study selection. Robotic- and static CAIS (sCAIS) had the most accurate and clinically acceptable outcomes. sCAIS was further divided according to the guidance level. Among the sCAIS groups, fully guided implant placement had the greatest accuracy. Augmented reality-based CAIS (AR-based CAIS) had clinically acceptable results for all the outcomes except for apical global deviation. Dynamic CAIS (dCAIS) demonstrated clinically safe results, except for horizontal apical deviation. Freehand implant placement was associated with the greatest number of errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully guided sCAIS demonstrated the most predictable outcomes, whereas freehand sCAIS demonstrated the lowest accuracy. AR-based and robotic CAIS may be promising alternatives.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of robotic CAIS and investigate the accuracy of various CAIS modalities.

Clinical efficacy of computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery: A systematic scoping review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital technology can improve the success of zygomatic implant (ZI) surgery. However, the reliability and efficacy of computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (CAZIS) need further analysis.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the placement accuracy, implant survival, and complications of CAZIS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of English and Mandarin Chinese publications up to May 2023 was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Wanfang database. The nonpeer-reviewed literature was searched in the trial register (clinicaltrials.gov). Clinical studies and cadaver studies on CAZIS were included. After data extraction and collection, the findings were critically reviewed, analyzed, interpreted, and discussed.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. After excluding publications with duplicate data, retaining the most recent, 28 articles were included in this scoping review. Of these, 18 were on static computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (sCAZIS), 8 on dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (dCAZIS), and 2 on robot-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (rAZIS). Excluding the outliers, the mean deviations of ZIs in the sCAZIS group (with 8 articles reporting implant placement accuracy, 183 ZIs involved) were: 1.15 ±1.37 mm (coronal deviation), 2.29 ±1.95 mm (apical deviation), and 3.32 ±3.36 degrees (angular deviation). The mean deviations of dCAZIS (3 articles, 251 ZIs) were: 1.60 ±0.74 mm (coronal), 2.27 ±1.05 mm (apical), and 2.89 ±1.69 degrees (angular). The mean deviations of rAZIS (2 articles, 5 ZIs) were: 0.82 ±0.21 mm (coronal), 1.25 ±0.52 mm (apical), and 1.46 ±0.35 degrees (angular). Among the CAZIS reported in the literature, the implant survival rate was high (96.3% for sCAZIS, 98.2% for dCAZIS, and 100% for rAZIS, specified in 14 of 21 clinical studies). The incidence of complications was low, but, because of the few relevant studies (4/21 specified), valid conclusions regarding complications could not be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

CAZIS has demonstrated clinical efficacy with high implant survival rates and placement accuracy. Of the 3 guided approaches, rAZIS showed the smallest 3-dimensional deviation.

Semi-autonomous two-stage dental robotic technique for zygomatic implants: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and accuracy of a semi-autonomous two-stage dental robotic technique for zygomatic implants.

METHODS

Twenty-six zygomatic implants were designed and randomly divided into two groups using 10 three-dimensionally printed resin models with severe maxillary atrophy. In one group, the conventional drilling technique was used, in the other group, the drilling process for the alveolar ridge section (first stage) was completed, after which drilling for the zygoma section (second stage) was done. Based on preoperative planning combined with postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), coronal, apical, depth, and angle deviations were measured. Zygomatic implant placement technique-related deviations (sinus slot, intrasinus, and extrasinus) were also recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The two-stage technical group's coronal, apical, depth, and angle deviations were 0.57 ± 0.19 mm, 1.07 ± 0.48 mm, 0.30 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.91 ± 0.51°, respectively. The accuracy of the two-stage technique was significantly higher than that of the conventional one-stage technique (p < 0.05). The apical deviation in the intrasinus group was 1.12 ± 0.56 mm, which was significantly better than that in the other two groups (p < 0.05). The angle deviation in the sinus slot group was 1.96 ± 0.83°, which was significantly worse than that in the other two groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Using the semi-autonomous two-stage dental robotic technique for zygomatic implants is feasible and is more accurate than using the conventional one-stage technique.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The two-stage technique enabled the semi-autonomous robot to overcome the mouth-opening restriction for zygomatic implants and improved accuracy.

Accuracy and Self-Confidence Level of Freehand Drilling and Dynamic Navigation System of Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The impact of the experience of the clinician on learning a new skill or equipment was still an intriguing subject. The goal of this research is to determine the accuracy level of a dynamic navigation system to that of freehand drilling by expert and novice practitioners with varied levels of experience. Additionally, the duration of the surgical procedure and the self-confidence level of the surgeons were also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analog impression of the patient was used to make 20 polyurethane simulation models of the maxilla. Five expert and five inexperienced surgeons prepared the site and placed the implants at random on ten models each. Two different techniques were used to insert dental implants: freehand and dynamic navigation systems. Dental implants were placed in Group 1 utilizing a computer-assisted dynamic navigation device. The implants in Group 2 were secured using free-hand drilling. The dental implants were inserted first in the maxillary right first molar, then in the maxillary right lateral incisor, and the maxillary left second premolar. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed by employing the Evalunav software and contrasted. The coronal 3-D, apex 3-D, apex vertical depth, and angular deviations for both procedures were evaluated. A pre-tested self-confidence questionnaire was also administered to assess the self-confidence of the practitioners. The duration of the surgical time was also documented for each strategy. The t-test was used to measure the difference in accuracy and confidence levels between freehand and dynamic navigation systems among expert and novice surgeons using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 60 implants were used (three insertion sites, two methods, and 10 practitioners). Each of the five expert and novice clinicians implanted 15 implants (five models each). Except for entry 3-D, there was a statistically significant difference between the two approaches in all of the primary outcome variables. The apex 3-D (5.89±1.08 mm) and apex vertical (2.08±1.27 mm) dimensions of the dynamic navigation system were significantly smaller than those of the freehand drilling approach (p<005). Dynamic navigation and freehand drilling had angular deviations of 7.16±1.76ᵒ and 9.06±2.18ᵒ, respectively (p=0.0004). The apex vertical deviation was reduced in the navigation technique (2.07±1.5 mm) than in the freehand drilling (2.86±1.4 mm) by experienced practitioners (p=0.04). The difference in time between the two procedures was determined to be statistically highly significant (p<0.001) by both expert and novice surgeons. Furthermore, when contrasting with experienced practitioners, novice practitioners had an overall increase in surgery time (p<0.001) for both approaches.

CONCLUSION

The current in vitro study found that the dynamic navigation system enables more accurate implant placement than the freehand drilling technique, irrespective of the experience of the surgeons. However, this technique appears to benefit novice practitioners more, as they can profoundly minimize their deviations while accomplishing results comparable to those of expert surgeons.

Application of titanium 3D-printed double-sleeve guide for zygomatic implants: A technique report

The unique anatomical structure of the atrophic edentulous maxilla limits the placement of endosteal root form dental implants without bone grafting and augmentation. Surgical placement of zygomatic implants in an optimal position remains challenging. This technique report illustrates a novel digital guide technology, including the design workflow, application method, and indications for assisting with the placement of zygomatic implants using a bone-supported titanium double-sleeve guide. In addition, when the implant body reaches the zygomatic bone following an intra-sinus path, including ZAGA type 0 and ZAGA type 1 cases, a matching window osteotomy surgical guide is used to locate the lateral window boundary and protect the sinus membrane. With this technique, the surgical procedure is simplified, and the precision of guided zygomatic implant placement is improved.

Hybrid Navigation Technique for Improved Precision in Implantology

The hybrid navigation technique involves the merging of the Dynamic navigation (DN) system (Navident, Claronav, Canada) and static navigation technique (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Combining the advantages of both techniques, devising a protocol of hybrid navigation will be advantageous to eliminate the difficulties faced by operators in using either methods separately. Three patients requiring dental implants were included in this study. This requires the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data) and intra-oral scan (Standard Tessellation Language (STL) format) data for the accurate planning of the implant positions in both the static and dynamic approaches. The steps carried out were repeated for each of the patients, the accuracy of the implant placement was verified postoperatively by merging the CBCT data pre and post through the Evalunav software (NaviDent, Claronav). The accuracy of the implants placed were assessed based on the mesio-distal, bucco-lingual, apical deviations in distance and in angulation. The semi-robotic DN and static guide combination as a hybrid technique is an interesting method to improve the accuracy of flapless implant surgeries and can be used in cases where the anatomical landmarks are determinant factors for the implant placement.

Accuracy of computer-aided static and dynamic navigation systems in the placement of zygomatic dental implants

BACKGROUND

Zygomatic implants are widely used in the rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae, but implant placement is not without risks, and it can potentially cause damage to related anatomical structures. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of the accuracy of static navigation systems in placing zygomatic dental implants in comparison to dynamic navigation systems.

METHODS

Sixty zygomatic dental implants were randomly allocated to one of three study groups, categorized by which implant placement strategy was used: A: computer-aided static navigation system (n = 20) (GI); B: computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 20) (NI); or C: free-hand technique (n = 20) (FHI). For the computer-aided study groups, a preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of the existing situation was performed in order to plan the approach to be used during surgery. Four zygomatic dental implants were inserted in each of fifteen polyurethane stereolithographic models (n = 15), with a postoperative CBCT scan taken after the intervention. The pre- and postoperative CBCT scans were then uploaded to a software program used in dental implantology to analyze the angular deviations, apical end point, and coronal entry point. Student's t-test was used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

The results found statistically significant differences in apical end-point deviations between the FHI and NI (p = 0.0053) and FHI and GI (p = 0.0004) groups. There were also statistically significant differences between the angular deviations of the FHI and GI groups (p = 0.0043).

CONCLUSIONS

The manual free-hand technique may enable more accurate placement of zygomatic dental implants than computer-assisted surgical techniques due to the different learning curves required for each zygomatic dental implant placement techniques.

Accuracy of automatic and manual dynamic navigation registration techniques for dental implant surgery in posterior sites missing a single tooth: A retrospective clinical analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative accuracy of manual (U-shaped tube) and automatic (two-in-one) dynamic navigation registration techniques for implant surgery performed in posterior sites missing one tooth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 58 partially edentulous patients with 58 implants, including 31 and 27 in the manual and automatic groups. Deviations between the planned and actual implant placement were assessed.

RESULTS

The angular deviation in the overall study cohort was 2.54 ± 1.21°, while the 3D deviations at the implant platform and apex were 0.90 ± 0.46 mm and 1.04 ± 0.47 mm, respectively. The respective angular deviations in the manual and automatic groups were 2.82 ± 1.17° and 2.21 ± 1.19° (p > .05), while platform deviations were 0.89 ± 0.48 mm and 0.91 ± 0.45 mm (p > .05), and apex deviations were 0.99 ± 0.48 mm and 1.11 ± 0.46 mm (p > .05). No significant differences in absolute buccolingual, mesiodistal, or apicocoronal deviations were detected between these groups at either level (p > .05) nor were did deviation distributions differ in the buccolingual, mesiodistal, or apicocoronal directions at the platform or apex levels (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and automatic dynamic navigation registration techniques can achieve excellent accuracy when placing implants in posterior sites missing a single tooth. The two-in-one automatic registration technique can reduce the amount of time and intraoperative steps necessary to complete the registration process relative to the manual U-shaped tube registration technique. Further follow-up studies are necessary to expand on these results.