Dynamic navigation versus conventional 3D-printed guides in implant surgery: A randomised controlled trial

TL;DR

Dynamic navigation improves implant accuracy and reduces surgery time compared to 3D-printed guides, without affecting short-term outcomes.

Contribution

This study provides empirical evidence that dynamic navigation outperforms static 3D-printed guides in implant surgery accuracy and efficiency.

Findings

Dynamic navigation showed higher accuracy with a 0.90 mm coronal deviation versus 1.40 mm for static guides.

Surgical time was reduced by 4 minutes with dynamic navigation compared to static guides.

Early implant stability and complication rates were similar between the two methods.

Abstract

Accurate implant positioning is essential for ensuring long-term prosthetic success and peri-implant health. Therefore, it is of
interest to compare the precision, surgical efficiency and short-term clinical outcomes between dynamic navigation (DN) and static
3D-printed guides (SG) in single-tooth implant placement. Fifty patients were randomly assigned to either the DN (n=25) or SG (n=25)
group and parameters such as coronal, apical and angular deviations, surgical time, implant stability (ISQ) and patient satisfaction
were assessed. DN demonstrated significantly higher accuracy (coronal deviation 0.90±0.30 mm vs 1.40±0.40 mm; p<0.001) and
reduced surgical time (18±4 min vs 22±5 min; p=0.002) compared with SG, while early implant stability and complication
rates were similar between groups. Thus, we show that dynamic navigation enhances implant placement accuracy and efficiency without
compromising short-term clinical outcomes, supporting its clinical advantage over conventional static guides.