Accuracy of implant placement via dynamic navigation and autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery methods: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal implant planning and placement allows the prosthesis to be well designed to achieve a satisfactory aesthetic and functional outcome. We aimed to compare deviations between implant planning and placement with the assistance of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (d-CAIS) or autonomous robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) methods in a clinical setting. METHODS: The retrospective analysis of medical records between 2021 July and 2022 December was conducted to compare the implantation accuracy of the d-CAIS and r-CAIS system in partially edentulous patients through cone-beam computed tomography. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check the data distribution. Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used as appropriate, with a defined significant difference (p < .05). RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were analysed (124 implants), with 38 patients (62 implants) in the d-CAIS group and 39 patients (62 implants) in the r-CAIS group. The differences between d-CAIS and r-CAIS were 4.09 ± 1.79° versus 1.37 ± 0.92° (p < .001) in angular deviation; 1.25 ± 0.54 versus 0.68 ± 0.36 mm (p < .001) in coronal global deviation; 1.39 ± 0.52 versus 0.69 ± 0.36 mm (p < .001) in apical global deviation; the results of the PROMs showed no statistical difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: r-CAIS allows more accurate implant placement than the d-CAIS technology. And both groups achieved overall satisfactory outcomes via VAS (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300072004).

The impacts of registration-and-fixation device positioning on the performance of implant placement assisted by dynamic computer-aided surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of dynamic computer-aided surgery (dCAS) in replacing a single missing posterior tooth, we compare outcomes when using registration-and-fixation devices positioned anterior or posterior to the surgical site. Registration is performed on either the anterior or opposite posterior teeth. METHODS: Forty individuals needing posterior single-tooth implant placement were randomly assigned to anterior or posterior registration. Nine parameters were analyzed to detect the deviations between planned and actual implant placement, using Mann-Whitney and t-tests for nonnormally and normally distributed data, respectively. RESULTS: The overall average angular deviation for this study was 2.08 ± 1.12°, with the respective average 3D platform and apex deviations of 0.77 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.32 mm. Angular deviation values for individuals in the anterior and posterior registration groups were 1.58°(IQR: 0.98°-2.38°) and 2.25°(IQR: 1.46°-3.43°), respectively (p = .165), with 3D platform deviations of 0.81 ± 0.29 mm and 0.74 ± 0.36 mm (p = .464), as well as 3D apex deviations of 0.89 ± 0.32 mm and 0.88 ± 0.33 mm (p = .986). No significant variations in absolute buccolingual (platform, p = .659; apex, p = .063), apicocoronal (platform, p = .671; apex, p = .649), or mesiodistal (platform, p = .134; apex, p = .355) deviations were observed at either analyzed levels. CONCLUSIONS: Both anterior and posterior registration approaches facilitate accurate dCAS-mediated implant placement for single missing posterior teeth. The device's placement (posterior-to or anterior-to the surgical site) did not affect the clinician's ability to achieve the planned implant location.

Accuracy and patient-centered results of marker-based and marker-free registrations for dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare implant placement accuracy and patient-centered results between the dynamic computer-assisted implant surgeries (d-CAISs) using marker-based and marker-free registration methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-armed, single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted, in which 34 patients requiring single implant placement at the esthetic zone were randomly assigned to the marker-based (n = 17) or marker-free (n = 17) groups. The marker-based registration was performed using a splint containing radiopaque markers, while the marker-free registration used natural teeth. The primary outcome assessed implant positioning accuracy via angular and linear deviations between preoperative and postoperative implant positions in CBCT. Patients were also surveyed about the intraoperative experience and oral health impact profile (OHIP). RESULTS: The global linear deviations at the implant platform (0.82 ± 0.28 and 0.85 ± 0.41 mm) and apex (1.28 ± 0.34 and 0.85 (IQR: 0.64-1.50) mm) for the marker-based and marker-free groups respectively showed no significant difference. However, the angular deviation of the marker-free group (2.77 ± 0.92 ° ) was significantly lower than the marker-based group (4.28 ± 1.58 ° ). There was no significant difference in the mean postoperative OHIP scores between the two groups (p = .758), with scores of 2.74 ± 1.21 for marker-based and 2.93 ± 2.18 for marker-free groups, indicating mild oral health-related impairment in both. Notably, patients in the marker-free group showed significantly higher satisfaction (p = .031) with the treatment procedures. CONCLUSIONS: D-CAIS with a marker-free registration method for single implantation in the anterior maxilla has advantages in improving implant placement accuracy and patients' satisfaction, without generating a significant increase in clinical time and expenses.

Dynamically guided transantral piezoelectric endodontic microsurgery: A case report with technical considerations.

AIM: Endodontic microsurgery (EMS) of maxillary molars may represent a complex challenge to the clinician due to the location of the roots and the proximity of the maxillary sinus floor. This report aimed to describe the simultaneous use of a computer-assisted dynamic navigation (C-ADN) system and piezoelectric bony-window osteotomy for the transantral microsurgical approach of a maxillary left first molar with adequate root canal filling and symptomatic apical periodontitis. SUMMARY: This case report highlights the importance of C-ADN to carry out a minimally invasive buccal surgical access to palatal roots affected by apical periodontitis and provides a practical example to help clinicians make treatment decisions based on the available evidence. Clinical and tomographic evaluations were performed before the surgical procedure and at 24-month follow-up. This case was treated using a C-ADN system fitted to a piezotome for the buccal approach of the buccal roots, maxillary sinus membrane lifting, and for transantral location, root-end resection, cavity preparation, and filling of the palatal root. The navigation system allowed to achieve an accurate apical canal terminus location and root-end filling of the three roots with a minimally invasive piezoelectric crypt approach. At the 24-month follow-up examination, the patient remains asymptomatic, with normal periapical structures, and regeneration of maxillary sinus walls. It was concluded that the combination of dynamic navigation with piezoelectric bony-window osteotomy offers enhanced accuracy, tissue preservation, diminished risk of iatrogenic complications, and could maximize success and survival rates in transantral EMS.

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.

Accuracy and efficiency of dynamic navigated root-end resection in endodontic surgery: a pilot in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: The operation accuracy and efficiency of dynamic navigated endodontic surgery were evaluated through in vitro experiments. This study provides a reference for future clinical application of dynamic navigation systems in endodontic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D-printed maxillary anterior teeth were used in the preparation of models for endodontic surgery. Endodontic surgery was performed with and without dynamic navigation by an operator who was proficient in dynamic navigation technology but had no experience in endodontic surgery. Optical scanning data were applied to evaluate the length and angle deviations of root-end resection. And the operation time was recorded. T tests were used to analyze the effect of dynamic navigation technology on the accuracy and duration of endodontic surgery. RESULTS: With dynamic navigation, the root-end resection length deviation was 0.46 ± 0.06 mm, the angle deviation was 2.45 ± 0.96°, and the operation time was 187 ± 22.97 s. Without dynamic navigation, the root-end resection length deviation was 1.20 ± 0.92 mm, the angle deviation was 16.20 ± 9.59°, and the operation time was 247 ± 61.47 s. Less deviation was achieved and less operation time was spent with than without dynamic navigation (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The application of a dynamic navigation system in endodontic surgery can improve the accuracy and efficiency significantly for operators without surgical experience and reduce the operation time.

Does dynamic navigation system preserve more dentine? - A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to comparatively analyse the amount of dentin removal by free hand and static guided endodontics with dynamic navigation system (DNS) in endodontic access cavity preparation. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Based on the structured PICO framework of "Comparative evaluation of dynamic navigation system (I) to freehand (C) and static guided endodontics (C) in endodontic access cavity preparation on the preservation of tooth structure (O) when assessed on permanent human teeth (P)", the keywords were formulated and the articles were retrieved from three databases namely PubMed, Scopus and Embase, based on the keywords from the time of inception of DNS till June 2023. The risk of bias assessment was done using a modified Joanne Briggs Institute checklist, which evaluated domains such as randomisation, sample size, image acquisition using CBCT, angulation, accuracy and time taken. As the data was heterogenous, a quantitative meta-analysis was not performed. RESULTS: Initially, 174 articles were retrieved from the three databases, 30 duplicates were removed, after title check 108 articles were excluded and following abstract check only 10 articles qualified for full text analysis. On reviewing the 10 full text articles, 5 articles were excluded and the remaining 5 articles were subjected to the risk of bias analysis which showed that 2 articles displayed low risk of bias and three articles showed high risk of bias. The RoB analysis revealed that only 2 studies evaluated the preservation of dentin in terms of accuracy, angulation and time taken proving the increased precision with minimal loss of tooth structure using DNS. In both the studies, DNS proved to be superior to free hand technique in terms of precision, accuracy and efficiency in locating the canals during access cavity preparation with maximal preservation of tooth structure. CONCLUSION: With the minimal literature evidences, the present systematic review highlights maximal preservation of dentin using DNS. However, further invitro and invivo studies comparing the free hand, static guided endodontics to DNS must be carried out for its translation into clinical practice. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dynamic navigation system provides maximal preservation of dentin during access cavity preparation.

Analysis of the Application Value of Dynamic Navigation Guidance in Oral Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the application of dynamic navigation guidance technology in different implantation scenarios, and to provide a scientific basis for the innovation and advancement of implantation techniques. METHODS: Fifteen cases of patients with malocclusions admitted between January 2021 and February 2023 were selected as the study subjects. All patients underwent dynamic navigation-guided oral implantation interventions. CBCT scans were taken after implantation surgery to record deviations of implantation points, including implantation point deviation, endpoint deviation, and angle deviation. RESULTS: Dynamic navigation guidance effectively improves the reliability and stability of implantation in oral implant patients. CBCT effectively evaluated the state of the patient's periodontal implant, analyzed the state of the patient's lesion area, and improved the quality of implant intervention through CBCT guidance. The implantation point deviation was (0.407±0.193) mm, the endpoint deviation was (0.492±0.201) mm, and the implant angle deviation was (2.162±0.283)°. There was no significant difference in implantation point deviation in the anterior and posterior parts of the upper and lower jaws after intervention (P>0.05). However, there were significant differences in endpoint deviation and implant angle deviation among the anterior and posterior parts of the upper and lower jaws (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Dynamic navigation guidance effectively improves the reliability and stability of implantation in oral implant patients. However, there is relatively greater endpoint deviation and implant angle deviation in the posterior part of the upper jaw.

Surgical performance of dental students using computer-assisted dynamic navigation and freehand approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, the training of implant placement has shifted from once entirely instructor-student teaching to the increasing use of computer-assisted simulation. Based on computerized virtual planning, dynamic navigation has been used for implant placement with higher accuracy than the traditional freehand protocol. However, whether dynamic navigation benefits to the training of dental students in implant placement remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the surgical performance of dental students in implant placement using computer-assisted dynamic navigation and freehand approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 dental students (6 males, 14 females, age: 25.6 ± 0.5 years) were enrolled in this study. With the traditional freehand approach (training 1) as the control protocol, computer-assisted dynamic navigation (training 2) was used in the training of dental students in implant placement. For each training, both the operating time (OT) of students and placement accuracy represented by the linear (at the implant platform, Dpl, and apex, Dap) and angular (Dan) deviations between the virtually planned and placed implants were recorded. Statistical comparisons were made between the two training protocols as well as male and female surgeons. RESULTS: OT2 was around twice of OT1 (p < .0001), whereas Dan1 was almost three times of Dan2 (p < .0001). Dap1 and Dpl1 were significantly higher than Dap2 (p = .014) and Dpl2 (p = .033) respectively. Besides, male students showed statistically higher Dpl1 (p = .033) and Dan1 (p = .002) than females. No significant difference was found between male and female students in OT1, OT2, Dpl2, Dap1, Dap2 and Dan2. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the use of computer-assisted dynamic navigation in the preclinical training could improve the surgical performance of the dental students in implant placement. The combination of dynamic navigation with the traditional preclinical surgical training may benefit to dental students and could be applied in dental education.

The accuracy of dynamic computer assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous jaws: A retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement using a dynamic navigation system in fully edentulous jaws and to analyze the influence of implant distribution on implant position accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Edentulous patients who received implant placement using a dynamic navigation system were included. Four to six mini screws were placed in the edentulous jaw under local anesthesia as fiducial markers. Then patients received CBCT scans. Virtual implant positions were designed in the planning software based on CBCT data. Under local anesthesia, implants were inserted under the guidance of the dynamic navigation system. CBCTs were taken following implant placement. The deviation between the actual and planned implant positions was measured by comparing the pre- and postsurgery CBCT. RESULTS: A total of 13 edentulous patients with 13 edentulous maxillae and 7 edentulous mandibles were included, and 108 implants were placed. The average linear deviations at the implant entry point and apex were 1.08 ± 0.52 mm and 1.15 ± 0.60 mm, respectively. The average angular deviation was 2.85 ± 1.20°. No significant difference was detected in linear and angular deviations between the maxillary and mandibular implants, neither between the anterior and posterior implants. CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic navigation system provides high accuracy for implant placement in fully edentulous jaws, while the distribution of the implants showed little impact on implant position accuracy.

Accuracy of different registration areas using active and passive dynamic navigation systems in dental implant surgery: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To gauge the relative accuracy of the use of passive and active dynamic navigation systems when placing dental implants, and to determine how registration areas affect the performance of these systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty implants were assigned to be placed into 40 total resin mandible models missing either the left or right first molars using either passive or active dynamic navigation system approaches. U-shaped tube registration devices were fixed in the edentulous site for 20 models each on the left or right side. Planned and actual implant positions were superimposed to assess procedural accuracy, and parameters including 3D entry deviation, angular deviation, and 3D apex deviation were evaluated with Mann-Whitney U tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Respective angular, entry, and apex deviation values of 1.563 ± 0.977°, 0.725 ± 0.268 mm, and 0.808 ± 0.284 mm were calculated for all included implants, with corresponding values of 1.388 ± 1.090°, 0.789 ± 0.285 mm, and 0.846 ± 0.301 mm in the active group and 1.739 ± 0.826°, 0.661 ± 0.236 mm, and 0.769 ± 0.264 mm in the passive group. Only angular deviation differed significantly among groups, and the registration area was not associated with any significant differences among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Passive and active dynamic navigation approaches can achieve comparable in vitro accuracy. Registration on one side of the missing single posterior tooth area in the mandible can complete single-tooth implantation on both sides of the posterior teeth, highlighting the promise of further clinical research focused on this topic.

Accuracy of a dynamic navigation system for dental implantation with two different workflows and intraoral markers compared to static-guided implant surgery: An in-vitro study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of a miniaturized dynamic navigation system with intraoral markers and two different workflows for dental implantation and to compare with static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two operators performed a total of 270 implant insertions in polyurethane mandibular models under simulated clinical conditions. Implants were placed after CBCT-based virtual planning in three different groups: two workflows utilizing dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS; DG1: marker in CBCT; DG2: 3D-printed marker) and the others with sCAIS (TG: template guided). Postoperative surface scans were matched to the planning data and allowed an evaluation of the angular and spatial deviation between the planned and the actually achieved implant position. Descriptive statistics were followed by a Mixed Model Analysis to determine the influence of the operator, the method, and operating area on different accuracy parameters and the random effect of the model number. RESULTS: The mean angular deviation ranged from 2.26° (DG1) to 2.96° (TG). The mean 3D deviation at the implant's tip ranged from 1.08 mm (TG) to 1.51 mm (DG2) and at the implant's base from 0.69 mm (TG) to 1.49 mm (DG2). The operator showed no significant influence on the accuracy. The method showed significant influence on singular parameters and the operating area on all spatial accuracy parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic navigation systems with intraoral markers enable accurate implant positioning, which is comparable to the static-guided implant surgery. 3D-printed markers provide less accurate results compared to prefabricated markers, attached before CBCT scan.

Accuracy of automatic and manual dynamic navigation registration techniques for dental implant surgery in posterior sites missing a single tooth: A retrospective clinical analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative accuracy of manual (U-shaped tube) and automatic (two-in-one) dynamic navigation registration techniques for implant surgery performed in posterior sites missing one tooth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 58 partially edentulous patients with 58 implants, including 31 and 27 in the manual and automatic groups. Deviations between the planned and actual implant placement were assessed. RESULTS: The angular deviation in the overall study cohort was 2.54 ± 1.21°, while the 3D deviations at the implant platform and apex were 0.90 ± 0.46 mm and 1.04 ± 0.47 mm, respectively. The respective angular deviations in the manual and automatic groups were 2.82 ± 1.17° and 2.21 ± 1.19° (p > .05), while platform deviations were 0.89 ± 0.48 mm and 0.91 ± 0.45 mm (p > .05), and apex deviations were 0.99 ± 0.48 mm and 1.11 ± 0.46 mm (p > .05). No significant differences in absolute buccolingual, mesiodistal, or apicocoronal deviations were detected between these groups at either level (p > .05) nor were did deviation distributions differ in the buccolingual, mesiodistal, or apicocoronal directions at the platform or apex levels (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Manual and automatic dynamic navigation registration techniques can achieve excellent accuracy when placing implants in posterior sites missing a single tooth. The two-in-one automatic registration technique can reduce the amount of time and intraoperative steps necessary to complete the registration process relative to the manual U-shaped tube registration technique. Further follow-up studies are necessary to expand on these results.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of dynamic navigation in endodontic microsurgery: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed at evaluating the clinical and radiological outcomes of novel dynamic navigation (DN)-aided endodontic microsurgery (EMS), with an analysis of potential prognostic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six teeth from 32 patients who received DN-aided EMS were included. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed at least 1 year postoperatively. Two calibrated endodontists assessed radiological outcomes according to two-dimensional (2D) periapical radiography (PA) and three-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging using Rud's and Molven's criteria and modified PENN 3D criteria, respectively. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis of the predisposing factors. RESULTS: Of the 32 patients with 46 treated teeth, 28 with 40 teeth were available for follow-up. Of the 28 patients, four (five teeth) refused to undergo CBCT and only underwent clinical and PA examinations, and the remaining 24 (35 teeth) underwent clinical, PA, and CBCT examinations. Combined clinical and radiographic data revealed a 95% (38/40) success rate in 2D healing evaluations and a 94.3% (33/35) success rate in 3D healing evaluations. No significant effect was found in sex, age, tooth type, arch type, preoperative lesion volume, preoperative maximum lesion size, presence/absence of crown and post, and the root canal filling state on the outcome of DN-aided EMS. CONCLUSIONS: DN-aided EMS has a favorable prognosis and could be considered an effective and reliable treatment strategy. Further investigations with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DN-aided EMS could be considered an effective and reliable treatment strategy.

Guided Lateral Window Osteotomy Using Dynamic Navigation for Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Novel Technique.

The size and the position of the sinus antrostomy play a key role in making sinus grafting surgery more predictable and effective with less complications. A cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scan of the maxilla were taken for a patient who is missing maxillary first molar tooth with limited residual bone. Data were exported to the dynamic navigation (DN) system software. Sinus lateral window osteotomy position and dimensions were determined and planned using four 1.5 mm diameter implants placed on the maxillary sinus lateral wall. The osteotomy was initiated following the planned four 1.5 mm implants in a parallel motion to the bone surface using dynamic navigation guidance; thus, creating an outline for the lateral sinus window. Afterword's, the lateral sinus window was greenstick fractured and the membrane was lifted; first molar implant osteotomy done, implant placed, and bone graft material was placed. The flap was sutured, and post-operative instructions and medications were given. No post-operative complications noticed. The outline of the lateral window osteotomy along with implant osteotomy can be accurately planned and executed using DN technology, which may potentially reduce complications and insure accurate placement of the implant and the graft.

A retrospective study of dynamic navigation system-assisted implant placement.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy of implant placement assisted by a dynamic navigation system, as well as its influencing factors and learning curve. METHODS: At Macao We Care Dental Center, 55 cases of implant placement using dynamic navigation were retrospectively evaluated. To evaluate their accuracy, the apex, tip, and angle deviations of preoperatively planned and postoperatively placed implants were measured. The effects of the upper and lower jaws, different sites or lateral locations of dental implants, and the length and diameter of the implants on accuracy were analyzed, as well as the variation in accuracy with the increase in the number of surgical procedures performed by dentists. RESULTS: The implant had an apex deviation of 1.60 ± 0.94 mm, a tip deviation of 1.83 ± 1.03 mm, and an angle deviation of 3.80 ± 2.09 mm. Statistical differences were observed in the tip deviation of implants at different positions based on three factors: jaw position, lateral location, and tooth position (P < 0.05). The tip deviation of the anterior teeth area was significantly greater than those of the premolar and molar areas. There were no statistically significant differences in apex deviation, tip deviation, or angle deviation between the implants of different diameters and lengths (P > 0.05). There were significant differences in the angle deviation between the final 27 implants and the first 28 implants. Learning curve analysis revealed that angle deviation was negatively correlated with the number of surgical procedures, whereas the regression of apex deviation and tip deviation did not differ statistically. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of dynamic navigation-assisted dental implants meets the clinical needs and is higher than that of traditional implants. Different jaw positions, lateral locations, and implant diameters and lengths had no effect on the accuracy of the dental implants guided by the dynamic navigation system. The anterior teeth area had a larger tip deviation than the posterior teeth area did. As the number of dynamic implantation procedures performed by the same implant doctor increased, the angle deviation gradually decreased.

Comparison the accuracy of a novel implant robot surgery and dynamic navigation system in dental implant surgery: an in vitro pilot study.

BACKGROUND: To compare the accuracy of dental implant placement using a novel dental implant robotic system (THETA) and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) by a vitro model experiment. METHODS: 10 partially edentulous jaws models were included in this study, and 20 sites were randomly assigned into two groups: the dental implant robotic system (THETA) group and a dynamic navigation system (Yizhimei) group. 20 implants were placed in the defects according to each manufacturer's protocol respectively. The implant platform, apex and angle deviations were measured by fusion of the preoperative design and the actual postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D Slicer software. Data were analyzed by t - test and Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 20 implants were placed in 10 phantoms. The comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation in THETA group were 0.58 ± 0.31 mm, 0.69 ± 0.28 mm, and 1.08 ± 0.66° respectively, while in Yizhimei group, the comparison deviation of implant platform, apex and angulation were 0.73 ± 0.20 mm, 0.86 ± 0.33 mm, and 2.32 ± 0.71° respectively. The angulation deviation in THETA group was significantly smaller than the Yizhimei group, and there was no significant difference in the deviation of the platform and apex of the implants placed using THETA and Yizhimei, respectively. CONCLUSION: The implant positioning accuracy of the robotic system, especially the angular deviation was superior to that of the dynamic navigation system, suggesting that the THETA robotic system could be a promising tool in dental implant surgery in the future. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the current results.

[Application and Progress of Digital Navigation Technology in Micro-apical Surgery].

As imaging technology develops rapidly, dynamic and static guided technology is widely used in many medical fields now. In order to improve the success rate, reduce surgical complications and improve future prognosis, domestic and foreign experts have introduced digital navigation technology into apical surgery. With the help of digital navigation technology, apical lesions can be easily located and the scope of osteotomy can be limited, which can make the surgery be completed accurately, especially in complex clinical cases. This study overviews the clinical use and research progress of dynamic and static guided technology in apical surgery, summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of this technique as well as looks forward to its future.

Does machine-vision-assisted dynamic navigation improve the accuracy of digitally planned prosthetically guided immediate implant placement? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to compare the accuracy of machine-vision (MV)-based dynamic navigation (DN)-assisted immediate implant placement with the conventional freehand technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 24 subjects requiring immediate implant placement in maxillary anterior teeth were randomly assigned to either the control (freehand by an experienced surgeon, n = 12) or the test group (MV-DN, n = 12). Implant platform, implant apex, angular, and depth deviations with respect to prosthetically guided digital planning and differences in implant insertion torque (ITV) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: MV-DN resulted in more accurate immediate implant position: significantly smaller global platform deviation (1.01 ± 0.41 mm vs. 1.51 ± 0.67 mm, p = .038), platform depth deviation (0.44 ± 0.46 mm vs. 0.95 ± 0.68 mm, p = .045), global apex deviation (0.88 ± 0.43 mm vs. 1.94 ± 0.86 mm, p = .001), and lateral apex deviation (0.68 ± 0.30 mm vs. 1.61 ± 0.88 mm, p = .004) were found in MV-DN compared to controls. No significant intergroup differences were observed for ITV and ISQ. CONCLUSIONS: MV-DN achieved more precise immediate implant position and comparable primary stability. Further trials are necessary to assess the benefits in terms of esthetics and tissue health/stability.

Present status and future directions - Guided endodontics.

Luxation injuries and other stimuli may lead to a pulp canal obliteration (PCO). Even though the apposition of tertiary dentine is a sign of a vital pulp, in some cases root canal treatment is indicated in the long term due to apical periodontitis or pulpitis. Depending on the extent of PCO, root canal treatment may be challenging even for experienced and well-equipped endodontic specialists. The 'guided endodontics' (GE) technique was introduced 6 years ago as an alternative to conventional access cavity preparation for teeth with PCO and apical pathosis or irreversible pulpitis. Using three-dimensional radiological imaging such as cone-beam computed tomography and a digital surface scan, an optimal access to the orifice of the calcified root canal can be planned virtually with appropriate software. GE is implemented either with the help of templates analogous to guided implantology (= static navigation) or by means of dynamic navigation based on a camera-marker system. GE has emerged as a field of research in the last 6 years with very promising laboratory-based results regarding the accuracy of guided endodontic access cavities for both static and dynamic navigation. Clinical implementation seems to provide favourable results, but the evidence is mainly based on numerous case reports and a few case series. This narrative review aims to provide an update on the present status of GE and to identify relevant research areas that could contribute to further improvements of this technique.