Advantages and disadvantages of implant navigation surgery. A systematic review

Gargallo‐Albiol, Jordi; Barootchi, Shayan; Salomó-Coll, Oscar; Wang, Hom‐Lay

doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2019.04.005

Cited by 133 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Static guidance requires the development of several surgical templates to allow straight access to individual root canals in posterior teeth. This is not the case with computer-aided dynamic navigation, since needed access cavities are planned preoperatively [14][15][16]. A computer-aided static navigation technique performed with surgical templates avoids the need for drilling guidance during surgery [13][14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is not the case with computer-aided dynamic navigation, since needed access cavities are planned preoperatively [14][15][16]. A computer-aided static navigation technique performed with surgical templates avoids the need for drilling guidance during surgery [13][14][15][16][17]. Therefore, endodontic cavity access accuracy directly depends on the design and manufacturing process of the surgical template, so if there is any inaccuracy during the fabrication process, it might cause intraoperative complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have been published about dynamic computer-assisted surgery systems and their high accuracy has been proven and assessed [15,16]. It has been shown that sinus perforations or inferior alveolar nerve injuries during drilling can be reduced by using these guided systems [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Procedure for Endodontic Access Cavities: An In Vitro Study

Zubizarreta-Macho

Deglow

Agustín-Panadero

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To analyze the accuracy of two computer-aided navigation techniques to guide the performance of endodontic access cavities compared with the conventional access procedure. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 single-rooted anterior teeth were selected, which were randomly distributed into three study groups: Group A—guided performance of endodontic access cavities through computer-aided static navigation system (n = 10) (SN); Group B—guided performance of endodontic access cavities through computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 10) (DN); and Group C—manual (freehand) performance of endodontic access cavities (n = 10) (MN). The endodontic access cavities of the SN group were performed with a stereolithography template designed on 3D implant planning software, based on preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a 3D extraoral surface scan, and endodontic access cavities of the DN group were planned and performed by the dynamic navigation system. After endodontic access cavities were performed, a second CBCT was done, and the degree of accuracy between the planned and performed endodontic access cavities was analyzed using therapeutic planning software and Student’s t-test. Results: Paired t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between SN and DN at the coronal (p = 0.6542), apical (p = 0.9144), or angular (p = 0.0724) level; however, statistically significant differences were observed between the two computer-aided navigation techniques and the MN group at the coronal (p < 0.0001), apical (p < 0.0001), and angular (p < 0.0001) level. Conclusion: Both computer-aided static and dynamic navigation procedures allowed accurate performance of endodontic access cavities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Procedure for Endodontic Access Cavities: An In Vitro Study

Zubizarreta-Macho

Deglow

Agustín-Panadero

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CBCT Standard Triangulation Language (STL) files elaborated through specific surgical software, together with stereolithographic (SL) models, promote individual virtual planning [6] that allows an immediate prosthetic loading of the implants with a reduction in surgical times, increasing the comfort of the patients [7,8] and the predictability of surgical results [9,10]. In the literature, computer-aided surgical systems have shown high accuracy rates in terms of implant position, depth, and angle, avoiding intraoperative surgical complications and poor positioning of implants which can compromise the primary stability and/or success of immediate-load restoration techniques [11][12][13]. However, in a recent systematic review of static navigation systems, Tahmeseb A. et al found a 1.2-mm (1.04-1.44 mm) mean horizontal deviation at the coronal entry point and a 1.48-mm (1.28-1.58 mm) deviation in the apical endpoint, respectively, with a mean angular deviation of 3.5 • (3.0-3.96 • ) [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Edentulous Computer-Aided Implant Surgery as Compared to Virtual Planning: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Vinci

Manacorda²,

Abundo³

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of computer-aided dental implant positions obtained with mucosal-supported templates as compared to Three-Dimensional (3D) planning. Materials and methods: One-hundred implants were inserted into 14 edentulous patients using the All-on-4/6 protocol after surgical virtual planning with RealGUIDE, 3DIEMME, and Geomagic software. After 6 months, three-dimensional neck (V) and apex (S) spatial coordinates of implants and angle inclination displacements as compared to virtual plans were evaluated. Results: The S maxilla coordinates revealed a significant discrepancy between clinical and virtual implant positions (p-value = 0.091). The V coordinates showed no significant differences (p-value = 0.71). The S (p-value = 0.017) and V (p-value = 0.038) mandible coordinates showed significant discrepancies between the clinical and virtual positions of the screws. Implant evaluation showed a 1-mm in average of the horizontal deviation in the V point and a 1.6-mm deviation in the S point. A mean 5° angular global deviation was detected. The multivariate permutation test of the S (p-value = 0.02) confirmed the difference. Greater errors in the mandible were detected as compared to the maxilla, and a higher S discrepancy was found in the posterior jaw compared to the anterior section of both the mandible and maxilla. Conclusions: Computer-aided surgery with mucosal-supported templates is a predictable procedure for implant placement. Data showed a discrepancy between the actual dental implant position as compared to the virtual plan, but this was not statistically significant. However, the horizontal and angle deviations detected indicated that flap surgery should be used to prevent implant positioning errors due to poor sensitivity and accuracy in cases of severe jaw atrophy.

show abstract

“…овременная имплантология на фоне унификации высокоточного хирургического и ортопедического инструментария стала простой доступной процедурой и достаточно успешно выполняет опорную функцию в различных анатомо-топографических условиях, значительно улучшает результаты реабилитации пациентов с частичным или полным отсутствием зубов [1][2][3]. Надежное функционирование дентальных имплантатов как в ранние, так и в более поздние сроки после наложения конструкций зависит от общесоматического статуса, гигиенического состояния полости рта, активности микробной колонизации, которые активно учувствуют в возникновении и развитии воспалительно-деструктивных явлений в периимплантационной зоне [4][5][6][7].…”

unclassified

Quality of life evaluation in the patients with peri-implant mucositis treated with the probiotics

Ahmedbeyli¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advantages and disadvantages of implant navigation surgery. A systematic review

Cited by 133 publications

References 33 publications

Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Procedure for Endodontic Access Cavities: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Procedure for Endodontic Access Cavities: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Edentulous Computer-Aided Implant Surgery as Compared to Virtual Planning: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Quality of life evaluation in the patients with peri-implant mucositis treated with the probiotics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About