Performance of novice versus experienced surgeons for dental implant placement with freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Implant Dentistry
Purpose This study aimed to investigate the performance of novice versus experienced practitioners for placing dental implant using freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches. Methods A total of 72 implants were placed in 36 simulation models. Three experienced and three novice practitioners were recruited for performing the osteotomy and implant insertion with freehand, surgical guide (pilot-drill guidance) and navigation (X-Guide, X-Nav technologies) approaches. Each practitioner inserted 4 implants per approach randomly with a 1-week gap to avoid memory bias (4 insertion sites × 3 approaches × 6 practitioners = 72 implants). The performance of practitioners was assessed by comparing actual implant deviation to the planned position, time required for implant placement and questionnaire-based self-confidence evaluation of practitioners on a scale of 1–30. Results The navigation approach significantly improved angular deviation compared with freehand (P < 0.001) an...
Cureus, 2023
Background and objective: The impact of the experience of the clinician on learning a new skill or equipment was still an intriguing subject. The goal of this research is to determine the accuracy level of a dynamic navigation system to that of freehand drilling by expert and novice practitioners with varied levels of experience. Additionally, the duration of the surgical procedure and the self-confidence level of the surgeons were also evaluated. Materials and methods: An analog impression of the patient was used to make 20 polyurethane simulation models of the maxilla. Five expert and five inexperienced surgeons prepared the site and placed the implants at random on ten models each. Two different techniques were used to insert dental implants: freehand and dynamic navigation systems. Dental implants were placed in Group 1 utilizing a computer-assisted dynamic navigation device. The implants in Group 2 were secured using free-hand drilling. The dental implants were inserted first in the maxillary right first molar, then in the maxillary right lateral incisor, and the maxillary left second premolar. Preoperative and postoperative CBCT scans were superimposed by employing the Evalunav software and contrasted. The coronal 3-D, apex 3-D, apex vertical depth, and angular deviations for both procedures were evaluated. A pre-tested self-confidence questionnaire was also administered to assess the self-confidence of the practitioners. The duration of the surgical time was also documented for each strategy. The t-test was used to measure the difference in accuracy and confidence levels between freehand and dynamic navigation systems among expert and novice surgeons using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results: A total of 60 implants were used (three insertion sites, two methods, and 10 practitioners). Each of the five expert and novice clinicians implanted 15 implants (five models each). Except for entry 3-D, there was a statistically significant difference between the two approaches in all of the primary outcome variables. The apex 3-D (5.89±1.08 mm) and apex vertical (2.08±1.27 mm) dimensions of the dynamic navigation system were significantly smaller than those of the freehand drilling approach (p<005). Dynamic navigation and freehand drilling had angular deviations of 7.16±1.76ᵒ and 9.06±2.18ᵒ, respectively (p=0.0004). The apex vertical deviation was reduced in the navigation technique (2.07±1.5 mm) than in the freehand drilling (2.86±1.4 mm) by experienced practitioners (p=0.04). The difference in time between the two procedures was determined to be statistically highly significant (p<0.001) by both expert and novice surgeons. Furthermore, when contrasting with experienced practitioners, novice practitioners had an overall increase in surgery time (p<0.001) for both approaches. Conclusion: The current in vitro study found that the dynamic navigation system enables more accurate implant placement than the freehand drilling technique, irrespective of the experience of the surgeons. However, this technique appears to benefit novice practitioners more, as they can profoundly minimize their deviations while accomplishing results comparable to those of expert surgeons.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
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 component...
J Periodontal Implant Sci., 2023
Purpose: This study investigated the accuracy of free-hand implant surgery performed by an experienced operator compared to static guided implant surgery performed by an inexperienced operator on an anterior maxillary dental model arch. Methods: A maxillary dental model with missing teeth (No. 11, 22, and 23) was used for this in vitro study. An intraoral scan was performed on the model, with the resulting digital impression exported as a stereolithography file. Next, a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was performed, with the resulting image exported as a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine file. Both files were imported into the RealGUIDE 5.0 dental implant planning software. Active Bio implants were selected to place into the model. A single stereolithographic 3-dimensional surgical guide was printed for all cases. Ten clinicians, divided into 2 groups, placed a total of 60 implants in 20 acrylic resin maxillary models. Due to the small sample size, the Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze mean values in the 2 groups. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4. Results: The accuracy of implant placement using a surgical guide was significantly higher than that of free-hand implantation. The mean difference between the planned and actual implant positions at the apex was 0.68 mm for the experienced group using the free-hand technique and 0.14 mm for the non-experienced group using the surgical guide technique (P=0.019). At the top of the implant, the mean difference was 1.04 mm for the experienced group using the free-hand technique and 0.52 mm for the non-experienced group using the surgical guide technique (P=0.044). Conclusions: The data from this study will provide valuable insights for future studies, since in vitro studies should be conducted extensively in advance of retrospective or prospective studies to avoid burdening patients unnecessarily.
Dynamic Navigation in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2021
Dynamic navigation is a technique that allows for the placement of dental implants using a computer-guided approach according to preoperative planning. Its accuracy has been assessed in several previous studies. The purpose of this study was to summarize data on implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation, to synthesize the frequency of intraoperative complications and implant failures, and to compare this technique with static computer-guided surgery and a freehand approach. Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches until December 2019 were performed. The outcome variables were implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation, accuracy differences between dynamic and static techniques and between dynamic and freehand techniques, intraoperative complications, and implant failures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results: A total of 32 studies were included; 29 reported accuracy values (2,756 implants), and 10 focused on complications and implant failures (1,039 implants). The pooled mean implant placement errors were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.677 to 0.943) mm at the entry point and 0.910 (95% CI: 0.770 to 1.049) mm at the apical point. The pooled mean vertical and angular deviations were 0.899 (95% CI: 0.721 to 1.078) mm and 3.807 (95% CI: 3.083 to 4.530) degrees. The navigation group showed significantly lower implant placement errors with respect to the freehand technique (P < .01) and similar accuracy values (P ≥ .05) compared with the static technique. The pooled prevalence of failures was 1% (95% CI: 0.00% to 2%). Conclusion: Dynamic navigation provided small implant placement errors, comparable with those obtained using static computer-guided surgery, and can be considered a more accurate technique than conventional freehand surgery.
Guidance means accuracy: A randomized clinical trial on freehand versus guided dental implantation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved Objectives: A randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare all three known static guided surgery protocols (pilot, partial, full) with each other and with freehand surgery in terms of accuracy, under the same conditions. Material and Methods: 207 implants of the same brand and type were placed in 101 partially edentulous volunteers in need of implantation in the mandible or maxilla or both. All cases were digitally planned, and the comparison of the planned and actual implant positions was performed using a medical image analysis software with dedicated algorithms. The primary outcome variable was angular deviation (AD, degrees). The secondary outcome variables were coronal global deviation (CGD, mm), apical global deviation (AGD, mm) and voxel overlap (VO, %). Results: AD showed stepwise improvement in significant steps as the amount of guidance increased. The highest mean AD (7.03°± 3.44) was obtained by freehand surgery, and the lowest by fully guided surgery (3.04°± 1.51). As for the secondary outcome variables, all guided protocols turned out to be significantly superior to freehand surgery, but they were not always significantly different from each other. Conclusions: As for the comparison that this study sought to perform, it can be said that the static guided approach significantly improves the accuracy of dental implant surgery as compared to freehand surgery. Furthermore, the results suggest that any degree of guidance yields better results than freehand surgery and that increasing the level of guidance increases accuracy. clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03854162
Accuracy of Implant Placement with a Navigation System, a Laboratory Guide, and Freehand Drilling
2018
Purpose: Computer-aided surgery under navigation system guidance is widely applied in dental implant procedures. However, the accuracy of drilling with such navigation systems has not been comparatively evaluated alongside those of laboratory guide-based and freehand drilling. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the accuracies of these three drilling systems. Materials and Methods: A navigation system, a laboratory guide, and freehand drilling were used to drill 150 holes on 30 cast models. Two master models-one each for the maxilla and mandible-were prepared with the idea of placing five implants per cast. After drilling five holes on each cast, postoperative cone beam computed tomography images were acquired to measure the magnitude of errors. Results: The navigation system and laboratory guide were more accurate than freehand placement with respect to total errors at the entry and apex, lateral error at the apex, and angular error. The navigation system was more accurate than the laboratory guide with respect to angular error. Laboratory guide-based drilling was more accurate than freehand drilling in terms of lateral error at entry. Conclusion: In comparison with the laboratory guide and freehand placement, the navigation system exhibited lower angular and axial errors. Despite its higher accuracy, the navigation system requires the operator to pay greater attention.
Accuracy of surgical guide in fully guided dental implant surgery
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the precision of the surgical guide in static fully guided dental implant surgery. Materials and methods: This research was done on partly edentulous patients whose situations were straightforward and did not require bone or soft tissue augmentation. Fourteen patients (ranging in age from 25 to 70) received 40 dental implants at the dental implant unit, oral and maxillofacial surgery center, Gazi Alhariri Teaching Hospital, Medical City, Baghdad. Using a surgical guide, the dental implants were guided into the most prosthetically-appropriate location. To evaluate the accuracy of the surgical guide in terms of angular deviation, entry point, and implant depth. The actual post-operative implant position was compared to the designed implant position prior to surgery. Results: The mean for the angular deviation between the designed and post-operation actual implant position was (3.83 ± 2.85) degrees, the depth difference was (1.09 ± 0.81 )...
BMC Oral Health
Background The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement in model surgeries according to the design of the drills (straight drills or step drills) used to finalize the implant bed during pilot-guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS). Methods Model surgeries were carried out on resin models randomly assigned to three study groups. Virtual planning software (coDiagnostiX 10.6, Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada) was used to plan the implant positions. In Groups 1 and 2, pilot-guided sCAIS was performed. Straight drills were used in Group 1, and step drills were used in Group 2 to finalize the implant beds. In Group 3, fully guided sCAIS was performed using a universal fully guided kit (RealGUIDE Full Surgical Kit 3DIEMME, RealGUIDE, Cantù, Como, Italy). A total of 90 dental implants (Callus Pro, Callus Implant Solutions GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany) were placed (six implants per model, five models per study group). The primary outcome vari...