Three-dimensional Accuracy of Angled Dental Implant Placement: A Comparison Study of the Dynamic Navigation System and Free-hand Method

Year 2021, Volume: 22 Issue: Special Issue of Dentistry, 119 - 128, 30.01.2021

Güneş Kenan Üstek Hasan Onur Şimşek

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the success of the free-hand technique and dynamic navigation system in a completely edentulous patient model. The two methods were compared by comparing the results achieved after the surgery against the planning made before the surgery.
Materials and Methods: The cone-beam computed tomography imaging data obtained after the implants were placed and the previously planned results of the procedure were overlapped in a three-dimensional space and compared. Four types of deviations were measured in the evaluation of each implant: coronal, apical, depth and angular deviations.
Results: The mean deviation values in the coronal, apical and angular deviation parameters were higher in the free-hand technique (group 1) compared to the dynamic navigation method (group 2). Statistically significant differences between the two groups of angle implants were found in the coronal and apical positions of implants, and in the angular deviation (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Angled implant applications could be performed with higher accuracy with the dynamic navigation system than the free-hand method. Dynamic navigation increases the quality and accuracy of the surgical procedure by offering a high level of precision and ease of use. Its precision and accuracy are particularly high when placing angled implants.

Keywords

Implant accuracy, dynamic navigation system, free-hand method, angled implant placement

References

• 1. Drago C. Ratios of cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of definitive hybrid full-arch, screw-retained prostheses: results of a clinical study. J Prosthodont 2018; 27: 402-8.
• 2. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with brånemark system implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5(Suppl 1): 2-9.
• 3. Patzelt SB, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16: 836-55.
• 4. Scherer U, Stoetzer M, Ruecker M, Gellrich NC, von See C. Template-guided vs. non-guided drilling in site preparation of dental implants. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 1339-46.
• 5. Block MS, Emery RW. Static or dynamic navigation for implant placement-choosing the method of guidance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74: 269-77.
• 6. Bouchard C, Magill JC, Nikonovskiy V, Byl M, Murphy BA, Kaban LB, et al. Osteomark: a surgical navigation system for oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 265-70.
• 7. Vercruyssen M, Cox C, Coucke W, Naert I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template. J Clin Periodontol 2014; 41: 717-23.
• 8. Gher ME, Richardson AC. The accuracy of dental radiographic techniques used for evaluation of implant fixture placement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1995; 15: 268-83.
• 9. Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral implant surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28: 105-11.
• 10. Taruna M, Chittaranjan B, Sudheer N, Tella S, Abusaad M. Prosthodontic perspective to all-on-4® concept for dental implants. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: 16-9.
• 11. Farley NE, Kennedy K, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Split-mouth comparison of the accuracy of computer-generated and conventional surgical guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: 563-72.
• 12. Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 571-7.
• 13. Somogyi-Ganss E, Holmes HI, Jokstad A. Accuracy of a novel prototype dynamic computer-assisted surgery system. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 882-90.
• 14. Emery RW, Merritt SA, Lank K, Gibbs JD. Accuracy of dynamic navigation for dental implant placement-model-based evaluation. J Oral Implantol 2016; 42: 399-405.
• 15. Stefanelli LV, DeGroot BS, Lipton DI, Mandelaris GA. Accuracy of a dynamic dental implant navigation system in a private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34: 205-13.
• 16. Mediavilla Guzmán A, Riad Deglow E, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, Agustín-Panadero R, Hernández Montero S. Accuracy of computer-aided dynamic navigation compared to computer-aided static navigation for dental implant placement: An In Vitro Study. J Clin Med 2019; 8: 2123.
• 17. 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 Implants Res 2020; 31: 255-63.
• 18. Gambarini G, Galli M, Stefanelli LV, Di Nardo D, Morese A, Seracchiani M, et al. Endodontic microsurgery using dynamic navigation system: A case report. J Endod 2019; 45: 1397-402.
• 19. Jain SD, Carrico CK, Bermanis I, Rehil S. Intraosseous anesthesia using dynamic navigation technology. J Endod 2020; 46: 1894-900.
• 20. Chen YT, Chiu YW, Peng CY. Preservation of inferior alveolar nerve using the dynamic dental implant navigation system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 78: 678-79.