RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of implant position, using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), with either static, dynamic, or freehand implant placement, in fully edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with a total of 88 fixtures were included. Implants were divided equally into four groups: a combination of static and dynamic CAIS (SD group), static CAIS (S group), dynamic CAIS (D group), and freehand placement (FH group). Angular deviation, as well as the 3D platform and apex deviations, were measured for all groups. Furthermore, the direction of implant deviation was recorded and compared. RESULTS: The FH group showed significantly more deviation compared to all groups, considering all the aspects, and at both the implant platform and apex. A significant difference in angular deviation between the SD and S groups (p < .001), and between the SD and D groups (p < .001) was noted, favoring the SD group. When evaluating implant distribution, the FH group showed a tendency towards the buccal, apical, and distal directions at platform and apex, while in the D group, implants shifted more to the buccal. In contrast, the SD group did not show a trend toward any specific direction. The S and SD groups did not show a statistical significance considering any direction. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of static and dynamic CAIS increases the accuracy of implant placement in fully edentulous arches when compared with either static or dynamic CAIS alone, as well as freehand placement.