Accuracy of a Dynamic Dental Implant Navigation System in a Private Practice

Stefanelli, Luigi Vito; DeGroot, Bradley S.; Lipton, David; Mandelaris, George A.

doi:10.11607/jomi.6966

Cited by 139 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Corresponding angular deviation (9.1 ( SD : 4.99°) differences were also statistically significant (p < .001), and the authors concluded that the feasibility of dynamic navigation was favourable in partially edentulous cases. In a retrospective analysis (Stefanelli, DeGroot, Lipton, & Mandelaris, ) where the identical micron tracker device was used for the treatment of 89 consecutive cases, measured mean linear deviations were less than 1 mm. Hence, almost perfect angular deviation values (mean: 1.65°) were also reported for the same group of 99 implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…tentially provided this result.The graphical representation of the rate of learning how to place implants with better accuracy over time or repeated experiences can be defined as the learning curve(Kassite, Bejan-Angoulvant, Lardy, & Binet, 2019). Such a curve was implied by the aforementioned two previous studies(Block et al, 2017;Stefanelli et al, 2019), revealing a trend towards a lower deviation rate after 15 to 25 cases. In contrast, no statistically significant learning curve was found in this study when incorporating all variables in a single analysis model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Aydemir

Arısan

2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the deviations of planned and placed implants placed by the assistance of a micron tracker‐based dynamic navigation device or freehand methods. Material and methods A thermoplastic fiducial marker was adapted on the anterior teeth, and cone‐beam computerized tomography was used for imaging. A minimum of one implant was planned for each side of the posterior maxilla, and the dynamic navigation device or freehand method was randomly used for surgical insertion. Deviations were measured by matching the planning data with a final CBCT image. Linear deviations (mm) between the planned and placed implants were the primary outcome. The results were analysed by generalized linear mixed models (p < .05). (NCT03471208). Results A total of 92 implants were placed to 32 volunteers, and 86 implants were included in the final analysis. For the linear deviations, mean of differences (Δ) was 0.72mm (Standard deviation (SD): 0.26); (95% Confidence interval (CI): 0.39–1.02) in the shoulder of the implants (p < .001) and 0.69mm (SD: 0.36); (95% CI: 0.19–1.19) in the tip of the implants (p < .001). For the angular deviations, Δ was 5.33° (SD: 1.63); (95% CI: 7.17–3.48); (p < .001). Conclusions The navigation technique can be used to transfer virtual implant planning to the patient's jaw with increased accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Aydemir

Arısan

2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relying only on experience in general surgery can result in various medical errors [16,17]. Moreover, the disadvantages of using guide stents alone in a dental implant surgery include uncertainty of depth and edentulous conditions [18,19]. Pernar et al [15] also reported that the presence of bone spine causes drills to move up and down unsteadily when using dental implant navigation systems alone and thus results in errors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Accuracy of Implant Installation with a Navigation System (NS), a Laboratory Guide (LG), NS with LG, and Freehand Drilling

Sun

Lee

Lan

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement by using the conventional freehand method, the surgical guide alone, the dental navigation system alone, and the dental navigation system with a surgical guide. The participants were aged 20 years or older and were requiring dental implant surgery according to an assessment made by a dentist between July 2014 and December 2017. A total of 128 dental implants were inserted, 32 dental implants in each group, and participants with similar or identical age (i.e., 20–50 years or 50 years or above) and missing tooth locations were paired for comparison. Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Using the dental navigation system with a surgical guide could help dentists to position implants more accurately. Total, longitudinal, and angular error deviation were significantly different (p < 0.0001). The same level of accuracy could be obtained for the different jaws and tooth positions. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the total, longitudinal, and angular errors differed significantly (p < 0.0001). A comparison of the four dental implant surgical methods indicated that the combination of a dental implant navigation system and a surgical guide kit achieved the highest accuracy in terms of the different tooth positions and jaws.

show abstract

“…Dynamic navigation makes use of systems working with a camera recording the position of the patient and the surgical instruments, and a screen displaying the position of the drills onto Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) images in real-time during surgery [5]. Both techniques have good accuracy values reported in the literature [3,6,7], but the majority of the studies involved skilled operators or failed in reporting their level of experience. Some model-based studies investigated whether surgical experience could influence the accuracy of implant placement using drill guides [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Navigation in Dental Implantology: The Influence of Surgical Experience on Implant Placement Accuracy and Operating Time. An in Vitro Study

Pellegrino

Bellini

Cavallini

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: the aim of this in vitro study was to test whether the implant placement accuracy and the operating time can be influenced by the operator’s experience. Materials and methods: sixteen models underwent a (Cone Beam Computer Tomography) CBCT and implant positioning was digitally planned on this. The models were randomly assigned to four operators with different levels of surgical experience. One hundred and twelve implant sites were drilled using a dynamic navigation system and operating times were measured. Based on postoperative CBCTs, dental implants were virtually inserted and superimposed over the planned ones. Two-dimensional and 3D deviations between planned and virtually inserted implants were measured at the entry point and at the apical point. Angular and vertical errors were also calculated. Results: considering coronal and apical 3D deviations, no statistically significant differences were found between the four operators (p = 0.27; p = 0.06). Some vectorial components of the deviation at the apical point and the angular errors of some operators differed from each other. Conclusions: within the limitations of this study, dynamic navigation can be considered a reliable technique both for experienced and novice clinicians.

show abstract

Accuracy of a Dynamic Dental Implant Navigation System in a Private Practice

Cited by 139 publications

References 9 publications

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: A split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparing Accuracy of Implant Installation with a Navigation System (NS), a Laboratory Guide (LG), NS with LG, and Freehand Drilling

Dynamic Navigation in Dental Implantology: The Influence of Surgical Experience on Implant Placement Accuracy and Operating Time. An in Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About