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

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 34; no. 3; pp. 221 - 232
• Main Authors: Wu, Bin‐Zhang, Xue, Fei, Ma, Yu, Sun, Feng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-03-2023
• Subjects: Accuracy; Computer-Aided Design; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Dental prosthetics; Deviation; dynamic navigation; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; implant surgery; Registration; registration method; registration‐and‐fixation; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - methods; Teeth; Tooth; Transplants & implants; two‐in‐one; U‐shaped tube; registration-and-fixation; registration method; implant surgery; dynamic navigation; accuracy; U-shaped tube; two-in-one
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.14034

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.