Comparing accuracy in guided endodontics: dynamic real-time navigation, static guides, and manual approaches for access cavity preparation - an in vitro study using 3D printed teeth.

OBJECTIVES: To assess root canal localization accuracy using a dynamic approach, surgical guides and freehand technique in vitro. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Access cavities were prepared for 4 different 3D printed tooth types by 4 operators (n = 144). Deviations from the planning in angle and bur positioning were compared and operating time as well as tooth substance loss were evaluated (Kruskal-Wallis Test, ANOVA). Operating method, tooth type, and operator effects were analyzed (partial eta-squared statistic). RESULTS: Angle deviation varied significantly between the operating methods (p < .0001): freehand (9.53 ± 6.36°), dynamic (2.82 ± 1.8°) and static navigation (1.12 ± 0.85°). The highest effect size was calculated for operating method (ηP²=0.524), followed by tooth type (0.364), and operator (0.08). Regarding deviation of bur base and tip localization no significant difference was found between the methods. Operating method mainly influenced both parameters (ηP²=0.471, 0.379) with minor effects of tooth type (0.157) and operator. Freehand technique caused most substance loss (p < .001), dynamic navigation least (p < .0001). Operating time was the shortest for freehand followed by static and dynamic navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Guided endodontic access may aid in precise root canal localization and save tooth structure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although guided endodontic access preparation may require more time compared to the freehand technique, the guided navigation is more accurate and saves tooth structure.

First comparison of a new dynamic navigation system and surgical guides for implantology: an in vitro study.

AIM: The transfer of 3D implant position planning to the clinical site is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare in vitro this transfer accuracy by using dynamic real-time navigation or static surgical guides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Deviations between planned and actual pilot drill positions were calculated (Denacam and NobelGuide; each n = 90), matching pre- and postoperative CBCT images: entry point, angle, tip (each 3D); depth, mesiodistal/bucco-oral entry points, and angles (each 1D). The influence of the maxilla and mandible, implant region (anterior/posterior), and marker position (ipsilateral/contralateral, Denacam only) was investigated (Mann-Whitney U test). RESULTS: No significant differences occurred regarding entry point (3D), mesiodistal/bucco-oral entry points (1D) or mesiodistal angle (1D) (P > 0.05). The angular and tip deviations (3D) were significantly smaller using Denacam (2.16 ± 0.59 degrees, 0.80 ± 0.55 mm; NobelGuide 2.54 ± 1.19 degrees, 1.09 ± 0.56 mm; P = 0.024, P < 0.0001). The deviations in depth and bucco-oral angle (1D) were significantly smaller using NobelGuide (1.05 ± 0.50 mm, 1.02 ± 1.16 degrees; Denacam 1.50 ± 0.64 mm, 1.51 ± 0.82 degrees; P < 0.0001). Significantly smaller deviations occurred within the mandible (Denacam, 5/8 parameters). Region and marker position showed no influence. No distinct influences were found with the use of NobelGuide. CONCLUSION: Denacam might possibly be a promising alternative to static surgical guides.