Accuracy of dental implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES

This in-vitro study compared the accuracy of implant placement using static versus dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) at two implant sites.

METHODS

Partially edentulous maxillary models were 3D-printed, and two implants (Straumann TL RN 4.1 × 10 mm) were inserted in FDI positions 15 and 16 per model using two CAIS approaches (10 models per approach). A three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction tool was used for implant planning, surgical guide design, and measuring implant positioning accuracy. In static CAIS, the implants were placed with 3D-printed surgical guides (n = 20); in dynamic CAIS, real-time navigation was performed (n = 20). Primary outcomes were defined as coronal and apical global deviation as well as angular deviations and deviation comparison between implants placed at positions 15 and 16; the secondary outcome was the bi-directional deviation in mesial-distal, buccal-palatal, and apical-coronal direction.

RESULTS

The mean coronal and apical global deviation for static CAIS for implant positions 15 were 0.88±0.31 mm and 1.45±0.37 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.67±0.31 mm, and 1.07±0.32 mm, respectively. In dynamic CAIS, the mean coronal and apical global deviation for implant position 15 were 0.97±0.32 mm and 1.58±0.56 mm, and for implant position 16 were 0.79±0.29 mm and 1 ± 0.37 mm, respectively. Buccal-palatal deviation was higher using static CAIS, and mesial-distal deviation was higher in dynamic CAIS. In position 15, mesial-distal deviation at the apex and the platform were lower in static approaches than in dynamic ones. In implant position 16, buccal-palatal deviation at the apex was lower in the dynamic group than with static ones. For bi-directional analysis, buccal-palatal deviation at the platform (P = 0.0028) and mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0056) were significantly lower in molar sites using static CAIS. Mesial-distal deviation at the apex (P = 0.0246) revealed significantly lower values in position 16 following dynamic CAIS.

CONCLUSIONS

Both static and dynamic CAIS resulted in accurate implant placement. However, dynamic CAIS exhibited higher deviation in the mesial direction in an in-vitro setting. In addition, the implant site affects the accuracy of both CAIS approaches.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Both static and dynamic CAIS demonstrate high accuracy for guided implant placement..