Accuracy analysis of free-handed implant placement compared to a dynamic navigation system

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 24-39
Author(s):  
Robert William Emery ◽  
Rossano Vinícius Dala Rosa Silva ◽  
Breno Monteiro Tavares ◽  
Ali Sheikh ◽  
Andre Alberto Camara Puppin

Objetivo: o objetivo do presente estudo foi determinar a precisão da posição de entrada, apical e angular da instalação de implantes utilizando um sistema guiado através de navegação dinâmica, e compará-lo à técnica sem utilização de guias, realizando cirurgias em ambientes clinicamente simulados. O estudo contemplou as medidas de precisão geral da instalação de implantes, realizada por estudantes de Odontologia utilizando planejamento virtual em modelos dentados. Métodos: dois estudantes de Odontologia sem experiência prévia em Implantodontia instalaram 44 implantes em modelos de mandíbula e maxila. O planejamento de todos os implantes foi realizado virtualmente. As imagens de tomografia computadorizada de feixe cônico (TCFC) foram importadas para um software e sobrepostas para realizar o planejamento virtual. Os primeiros 22 implantes foram instalados utilizando a técnica sem assistência. Os 22 implantes restantes foram instalados utilizando-se um sistema de navegação dinâmica. Novas tomadas tomográficas foram realizadas após a instalação dos implantes. Os dados das TCFCs de planejamento pré-operatório e pós-cirúrgicas foram enviados para análise comparativa. As técnicas guiada e livre foram comparadas entre si e também com a literatura sobre implantes instalados em modelos usando sistemas de guias estáticos e dinâmicos. Resultados: os implantes instalados utilizando o sistema de navegação dinâmica foram significativamente mais precisos, quando comparado à técnica livre. Conclusão: a cirurgia guiada por navegação dinâmica é precisa, promissora e de fácil aprendizado para cirurgiões-dentistas em início de carreira.

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 399-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W Emery ◽  
Scott A Merritt ◽  
Kathryn Lank ◽  
Jason D Gibbs

The purpose of this model-based study was to determine the accuracy of placing dental implants using a new dynamic navigation system. This investigation focuses on measurements of overall accuracy for implant placement relative to the virtual plan in both dentate and edentulous models, and provides a comparison with a meta-analysis of values reported in the literature for comparable static guidance, dynamic guidance, and freehand placement studies. This study involves 1 surgeon experienced with dynamic navigation placing implants in models under clinical simulation using a dynamic navigation system (X-Guide, X-Nav Technologies, LLC, Lansdale, Pa) based on optical triangulation tracking. Virtual implants were placed into planned sites using the navigation system computer. Post–implant placement cone-beam scans were taken. These scans were mesh overlaid with the virtual plan and used to determine deviations from the virtual plan. The primary outcome variables were platform and angular deviations comparing the actual placement to the virtual plan. The angular accuracy of implants delivered using the tested device was 0.89° ± 0.35° for dentate case types and 1.26° ± 0.66° for edentulous case types, measured relative to the preoperative implant plan. Three-dimensional positional accuracy was 0.38 ± 0.21 mm for dentate and 0.56 ± 0.17 mm for edentulous, measured from the implant apex.


Author(s):  
Yalin Zhan ◽  
Miaozhen Wang ◽  
Xueyuan Cheng ◽  
Yi Li ◽  
Xiaorui Shi ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 2123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfonso Mediavilla Guzmán ◽  
Elena Riad Deglow ◽  
Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho ◽  
Rubén Agustín-Panadero ◽  
Sofía Hernández Montero

Aim: To analyze the accuracy capability of two computer-aided navigation procedures for dental implant placement. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 dental implants were selected, which were randomly distributed into two study groups, namely, group A, consisting of those implants that were placed using a computer-aided static navigation system (n = 20) (guided implant (GI)) and group B, consisting of those implants that were placed using a computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 20) (navigation implant (NI)). The placement of the implants from group A was performed using surgical templates that were designed using 3D implant-planning software based on preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a 3D extraoral surface scan, and the placement of group B implants was planned and performed using the dynamic navigation system. After placing the dental implants, a second CBCT was performed and the degree of accuracy of the planning and placement of the implants was analyzed using therapeutic planning software and Student’s t-test. Results: The paired t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between GI and NI at the coronal (p = 0.6535) and apical (p = 0.9081) levels; however, statistically significant differences were observed between the angular deviations of GI and NI (p = 0.0272). Conclusion: Both computer-aided static and dynamic navigation procedures allow accurate implant placement.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 59-59
Author(s):  
Gerardo Pellegrino ◽  
Valerio Taraschi ◽  
Agnese Ferri ◽  
Andrea Zacchino ◽  
Claudio Marchetti

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 10756
Author(s):  
Tomoyuki Setoguchi ◽  
Yoichiro Ogino ◽  
Riichi Ouchida ◽  
Akira Takahashi ◽  
Yasunori Ayukawa ◽  
...  

The published article [...]


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (14) ◽  
pp. 6593
Author(s):  
Tomoyuki Setoguchi ◽  
Yoichiro Ogino ◽  
Riichi Ouchida ◽  
Akira Takahashi ◽  
Yasunori Ayukawa ◽  
...  

The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the accuracy of a newly developed dynamic navigation system and to compare the accuracy between flapless and open-flap surgery, and between surgeons. The subjects were patients who were scheduled to receive implants of the same size using the newly developed dynamic navigation system. The study’s procedures included cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) filming with fiducials, virtual planning of implant placement and the use of motion tracking technology for calibration and practical implant placement. The accuracy was evaluated using preoperative (virtual implant) and postoperative (actual implant) CBCT images based on angular, apical, coronal and vertical deviations. The differences of deviations between flapless and open-flap surgery, and between two surgeons, were statistically compared. In total, 66 implants were placed in 39 patients. The median and interquartile range of angular, apical, coronal and vertical deviations were 3.07° (2.52–3.54°), 0.96 mm (0.75–1.42 mm), 0.76 mm (0.57–1.37 mm) and 0.71 mm (0.61–0.88 mm), respectively. These deviations were similar to those found in previous studies. Flapless surgery resulted in a more accurate placement with respect to apical and coronal deviations, and the differences between the two surgeons were limited. The newly developed dynamic navigation system is considered to be eligible for clinical use.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Spille ◽  
Feilu Jin ◽  
Eleonore Behrens ◽  
Yahya Açil ◽  
Jürgen Lichtenstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new implant navigation system on two different digital workflows. Methods A total of 18 phantom jaws consisting of hard and non-warping plastic and resembling edentulous jaws were used to stimulate a clinical circumstance. A conventional pilot-drill guide was conducted by a technician, and a master model was set by using this laboratory-produced guide. After cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D scanning of the master models, two different digital workflows (marker tray in CBCT and 3D-printed tray) were performed based on the Digital Imaging Communication in Medicine files and standard tessellation language files. Eight Straumann implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm) were placed in each model, six models for each group, resulting in 144 implant placements in total. Postoperative CBCT were taken, and deviations at the entry point and apex as well as angular deviations were measured compared to the master model. Results The mean total deviations at the implant entry point for MTC (marker tray in CBCT), 3dPT (3d-printed tray), and PDG (pilot-drill guide) were 1.024 ± 0.446 mm, 1.027 ± 0.455 mm, and 1.009 ± 0.415 mm, respectively, and the mean total deviations at the implant apex were 1.026 ± 0.383 mm, 1.116 ± 0.530 mm, and 1.068 ± 0.384 mm. The angular deviation for the MTC group was 2.22 ± 1.54°. The 3dPT group revealed an angular deviation of 1.95 ± 1.35°, whereas the PDG group showed a mean angular deviation of 2.67 ± 1.58°. Although there were no significant differences among the three groups (P > 0.05), the navigation groups showed lesser angular deviations compared to the pilot-drill-guide (PDG) group. Implants in the 3D-printed tray navigation group showed higher deviations at both entry point and apex. Conclusions The accuracy of the evaluated navigation system was similar with the accuracy of a pilot-drill guide. Accuracy of both preoperative workflows (marker tray in CBCT or 3D-printed tray) was reliable for clinical use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document