Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Freehand Implant Placement: A Prospective Clinical Study

A cross-sectional CBCT assessment of the relative position of one-piece titanium-zirconium mini-implants placed for mandibular overdentures using non-guided surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative position of mini-implants to retain a mandibular overdenture, according to the surgical protocol, technical and anatomical factors.

METHODS

Mandibular cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were analyzed for 73 patients who received four one-piece titanium-zirconium mini-implants. Drilling was performed using a 1.6 mm needle drill and a 2.2 mm Pilot Drill, according to the bone density with a surgical stent. Post-insertion CBCT images in DICOM format were analyzed using the E-Vol-DX software with BAR filters. Divergence angle between implants and between implants and the overdenture path of insertion was measured using CliniView 10.2.6 software.

RESULTS

Divergence between implants ranged from 0° to 22.3° (mean = 4.2; SD = 3.7) in the lateral and from 0° to 26.2° (mean = 5.3; SD = 4.1) in the frontal projections (p < .001). Only 1 (0.2%) and 3 (0.7%) of the measurements were higher than 20° in the lateral and frontal views, respectively. The mean angulations between the implant and the path of insertion for the overdenture were 9.3° (SD = 7.5) and 4.0° (SD = 2.9) for the lateral and frontal views, respectively (p < .001). Regression analyses showed a significant association between the divergence of implants and the frontal view projection (p < .001), greater distance between the paired implants (p = .017), the flapped surgical protocol (p = .002), higher final insertion torque (p = .011), and deeper preparation with the needle drill (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mini-implants were placed with low divergence angles and satisfactory parallelism. Factors including shorter distances between the implants, higher density bone, and a flapless surgical approach all contributed positively to improved parallelism of the mini-implants.

Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guides and the freehand approach in implant placement: a prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Computer-guided implant surgery has improved the quality of implant treatment by facilitating the placement of implants in a more accurate manner. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant placement in a clinical setting using three techniques: dynamic navigation, static surgical guides, and freehand placement. We also investigated potential factors influencing accuracy to provide a comprehensive evaluation of each technique's advantages and disadvantages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-four implants in 65 patients were included in this prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: dynamic navigation, static surgical guides, or freehand placement. Implants were placed using a prosthetically oriented digital implant planning approach, and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed on preoperative plans to measure accuracy. Seven deviation values were calculated, including angular, platform, and apical deviations. Demographic and consistency analyses were performed, along with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests for deviation values.

RESULTS

The mean global platform, global apical, and angular deviations were 0.99 mm (SD 0.52), 1.14 mm (SD 0.56), and 3.66° (SD 1.64°) for the dynamic navigation group; 0.92 mm (SD 0.36), 1.06 mm (SD 0.47), and 2.52° (SD 1.18°) for the surgical guide group; and 1.36 mm (SD 0.62), 1.73 mm (SD 0.66), and 5.82° (SD 2.79°) for the freehand group. Both the dynamic navigation and surgical guide groups exhibited statistically significant differences in all values except depth deviations compared to the freehand group (p < 0.05), whereas only the angular deviation showed a significant difference between the dynamic navigation and surgical guide groups (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the superior accuracy and consistency of dynamic navigation and static surgical guides compared to freehand placement in implant surgery. Dynamic navigation offers precision and flexibility. However, it comes with cost and convenience considerations. Future research should focus on improving its practicality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Register-Medical Research Foundation of Thailand (MRF) with the TCTR identification number TCTR20230804001 on 04/08/2023. It was also conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional ethics committee at the Xian Jiaotong University Hospital of Stomatology, Xian, China (xjkqII[2021] No: 043). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Effect of guided implant placement learning experiences on freehand skills: A pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Guided implant systems can be used as a training approach for placing implants. This in vitro prospective randomized pilot study evaluated the learning progression and skill development in freehand placement of two implants supporting a three-unit fixed prosthesis on a simulation model among novice operators.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four senior dental students with no prior implant placement experience participated in the study. As a baseline, each student placed two mandibular and two maxillary implants by freehand technique on a simulation model. Sixteen consecutive guided placements using a static guide, dynamic navigation, and template-based guide followed totaling 32 guided implant placements into maxillary and mandibular models. Freehand implant placements before and after the various guided navigation attempts were compared to assess their impact on freehand skill. Metrics compared included surgical time, horizontal, vertical, and angulation discrepancies between the planned and placed implant positions measured on superimposed CBCT scans and analyzed with repeated measures regression with Tukey's adjusted pairwise comparisons (α = .05).

RESULTS

Before training with guided techniques, the average baseline freehand implant placement took 10.2 min and decreased to 8.2 after training but this difference was not statistically significant (p = .1670) There was marginal evidence of a significant difference in the 3D apex deviation with an average improvement of 0.89 mm (95% CI: -0.38, 2.16, p = .1120); and marginal evidence of a significant improvement in the overall angle with an average improvement of 3.74° (95% CI: -1.00, 8.48, p = .0869) between baseline and final freehand placement attempts.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this pilot study, guided implant placement experiences did not significantly benefit or hinder freehand placement skills. Dental students should be exposed to various placement techniques to prepare them for clinical practice and allow them to make informed decisions on the best technique based on their skills and a given clinical scenario.

Comparison of accuracy between single posterior immediate and delayed implants placed using computer guided implant surgery and a digital laser printed surgical guide: A clinical investigation

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The congruence of surgical implant placement with the preplanned position is important for anatomic and prosthetic precision, minimal complications, and increased longevity. The influence of implant placement timing on the surgical deviations in single posterior implants is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare deviations between preplanned and single posterior immediate and delayed implants placed using computer-guided digital light processing (DLP) surgical guides fabricated using intraoral scanning and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Implant surgery was performed on 24 participants requiring single immediate or delayed implants in the posterior maxillary and mandibular regions, for which the surgical site data were obtained from CBCT and intraoral scanning. Subsequently, virtual implant planning and DLP surgical guides were fabricated. Preimplant and postimplant placement CBCT scans were overlapped, and mean deviations for the immediate and delayed implant groups were calculated. The groups were compared with unpaired t tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 24 implants were placed, 12 in each group. In participants who received immediate implant placement, the mean ±standard deviation angular deviation, linear deviation at shoulder, linear deviation at apex, and vertical deviation were 1.03 ±0.70 degrees, 0.26 ±0.30 mm, 0.23 ±0.24 mm, and 0.39 ± 0.34 mm, respectively. In participants who received delayed implant treatment, the deviations were 0.53 ±0.60 degrees, 0.15 ±0.18 mm, 0.25 ±0.33 mm, and 0.17 ±0.10 mm, respectively. Significant differences between the 2 groups were found in the vertical deviation (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of the single posterior placement was associated with different deviations in the vertical direction. All deviations obtained were below the recommended values. DLP surgical guides fabricated from intraoral and CBCT scans provided accurate implant placement in immediate and delayed single posterior implants.

Effect of the level of alveolar atrophy on implant placement accuracy in guided surgery for full-arch restorations supported by four implants: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

A fixed screw-retained full-arch restoration supported by four implants is a popular treatment option for edentulous arches. Optimal alignment of implants is quite challenging in extremely atrophied edentulous cases, and a small amount of deviation is expected during guided surgery. This study aimed to compare implant accuracy among edentulous jaws with various levels of atrophy.

METHODS

Five separate copies of each Cawood and Howell model (III-V) were produced for the maxilla and mandible. A total of 120 implants (30 models). The implant accuracy was assessed based on angular deviations at the base (angle, 3D offset, distal, vestibular, and apical) and tip (3D offset, distal, vestibular, and apical).

RESULTS

The atrophy level of the jaws had a statistically significant effect on deviation; implants showed greater deviation from the planned location as the atrophy level increased.

CONCLUSION

Given that implant deviation increased with the degree of atrophy, a greater safety margin from important anatomical structures is recommended when planning implant location for guided surgery in Cawood and Howell V cases.

Influence of antagonist tooth on mandibular implant positioning during surgery among Indians

A retrospective radiographic analysis of cone beam computed tomographic radiographs of 42 patients who had undergone dental implant therapy at the department of implantology, Saveetha Dental College Hospitals, India. The mean angular deviation was 3.17 ° in the anterior, 1.6° in the premolar and 0.81° in the molar region. Data shows that free hand placement could be done with minimal deviation taking the opposing dentition as a guide.

Development of a Real-Time 6-DOF Motion-Tracking System for Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery

In this paper, we investigate a motion-tracking system for robotic computer-assisted implant surgery. Failure of the accurate implant positioning may result in significant problems, thus an accurate real-time motion-tracking system is crucial for avoiding these issues in computer-assisted implant surgery. Essential features of the motion-tracking system are analyzed and classified into four categories: workspace, sampling rate, accuracy, and back-drivability. Based on this analysis, requirements for each category have been derived to ensure that the motion-tracking system meets the desired performance criteria. A novel 6-DOF motion-tracking system is proposed which demonstrates high accuracy and back-drivability, making it suitable for use in computer-assisted implant surgery. The results of the experiments confirm the effectiveness of the proposed system in achieving the essential features required for a motion-tracking system in robotic computer-assisted implant surgery.

Comparative Analysis of Implant Prosthesis Treatment Planning and Execution Following Bone Repair Procedures Using Dynamic Surgical Navigation in Augmented Areas

Successful implant placement in augmented sites depends on the appropriate bone volume and quality, as well as careful planning of the procedure. Minimizing risks during the surgical and healing phases is also of great importance. A very promising technique has been introduced, which partially meets the above criteria. This technique is designed to increase the precision and reduce the invasiveness associated with surgical procedures during implantation. The aim of this clinical study was to analyze the accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery in augmented sites in patients treated with dental implants introduced using dynamic implant navigation. Eleven healthy patients who had planned and performed implant-prosthetic treatment after bone augmentation were analyzed. Twenty-three implants were placed with Navident dynamic navigation using the tissue punch flapless technique. This study evaluated the position of the inserted implant relative to the virtual plan and determined the correlation. The treatments were successful in all the treated patients, and the integration period (3 or 6 months) was uneventful and enabled implant-prosthetic treatment. The accuracy values provided in this study are comparable to, but not better than, data provided in the literature on dynamic and static computer-assisted surgery. Dynamic navigation may improve the quality and safety of surgical procedures and reduce the risk of complications.

Free-Hand versus Surgical Guide Implant Placement

One of the most key areas of dentistry is dental implant surgery. The use of digital equipment and software in dentistry has developed considerably in recent years compared to other fields of medicine. Since examining the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, along with case studies, can help physicians make informed decisions, this review study aims to raise the awareness of dentists to make easier decisions about using guided or free-hand surgery. When planning for a dental implant, one of the most challenging questions that doctors face is which method to use (guided surgery or free-hand). Choosing the right method, such as other clinical considerations, will depend on the individual circumstances of each patient and the preference of the treating physician. Free-hand surgery is a cost-effective method in which the flap is reflected, and, according to the doctor's diagnostic information, an implant is placed, which in many cases is a useful method. Guided surgery has the highest level of accuracy and control, in which osteotomy is designed and printed through a digital surgery guide, and depending on the complexity of the case and the patient's anatomy, it has a higher level of value than free surgery. The surgical guide helps the surgeon make the implant surgery more accurate, safer, simpler, at a lower cost, and in less time. In fact, there are patterns that convey information about the position of the tooth to the dentist before the implant is placed.