Current state of the art of computer‐guided implant surgery

Abstract

The invention of computerized axial tomography (now known as computerized tomography) and developments of interactive software to allow virtual planning, with the aim to guide the surgery precisely toward a specific target, has dramatically improved general, as well as oral, surgery. Virtual dental implant planning allows for a prosthetically driven approach, resulting in the best possible design of the prosthesis, better esthetics, optimized occlusion and loading. This approach has also changed the surgical paradigm of using extensive flaps to obtain a proper view of the surgical area because flapless implant surgery, with or without immediate loading, has become more predictable. Two types of guided implant surgery protocols - static and dynamic - are described in the literature. The static approach, better known as computer-guided surgery, refers to the use of a tissue-supported surgical template. This reproduces the virtual implant position directly from computerized tomographic data and this information can be converted to guide templates to be used during surgery, with or without raising a mucoperiosteal flap. Dynamic guided surgery, also called navigation, reproduces the virtual implant position directly from computerized tomographic data and uses motion-tracking technology to guide the implant osteotomy preparation. As the technology developed further, different levels of evidence were presented that showed various degrees of accuracy. Several protocols for guided surgery are available in the literature and are distinguished by different guide production techniques, methods of support and drilling/placement protocols. Currently, implant planning software using cone-beam computerized tomography data has made it possible to plan the optical implant position virtually the optimal implant position, taking the surrounding vital anatomic structures and future prosthetic requirements into consideration. This paper summarizes the evolution and ongoing trends in digital and virtual planning and in implant surgery. The purpose of this overview was to clarify the different concepts in guided surgery and their respective advantages, disadvantages and limitations. The outcome of guided surgery is assessed in terms of implant survival, precision and complications. Clinical cases are given to demonstrate briefly the workflow and clinical guidelines for safe use of these approaches.

Clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of computer‐guided versus conventional implant‐retained hybrid prostheses: A long‐term retrospective analysis of treatment protocols

“…This treatment modality may eliminate the need for bone grafting, and even raising a flap, if appropriate bone dimension and morphology exists . This might, in turn, improve patient acceptance to the recommended treatment and reduce post‐surgical morbidity …”

“…Despite high documented survival rates for implants placed using CGIP (approximately 95% at a 7‐year follow up period), a higher rate of prosthetic and biologic complications has also been reported . It is crucial to keep in mind that precision of implant position remains subject to the guide accuracy and adherence of the clinician to the proposed surgical protocol . Although these high‐precision technologies are used in the fabrication of such guides, several studies have shown some linear and angular deviations between the planned and placed implants .…”

Intraoperative bone registration: An implementation in orthopaedic surgery using polaris vicra system

“…The first surgical navigation was performed for neurosurgery by resorting to software packages developed by different research groups in previous years, which allow to visualize the human head. In the following years, a lot of improvements in this field were noted and it opened the doors to the computer-assisted surgery (CAS) development [1].…”

Full‐Arch Implant‐Supported Rehabilitation Guided by a Predicted Lateral Profile of Soft Tissue

“…Implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) have been used for full‐mouth rehabilitation for decades. Virtual planning and performing treatments using computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) have been reported in full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitation . Digital smile design technologies are popular in designing the smile from facial references and communication between the interdisciplinary team and patient .…”