Abstract:Statement of problem. Conventional radiographic methods are widely used to evaluate the clinical accuracy of implant position. However, such methods require a second computerized tomography (CT) scan and manual registration between presurgical and postsurgical CT data. The alignment errors cannot be calculated. Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to introduce a completely digital registration method to evaluate the clinical accuracy of implant position. The digital registration method was then compared with the radiographic method in evaluating accuracy. Some of the alignment errors produced in the digital registration procedures were recorded. Material and methods. A total of 32 implants from 19 patients with sufficient bone volume were enrolled in the study, and all implant surgeries were conducted by one experienced practitioner. Before the surgery, a cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scan was made for each patient along with a diagnostic impression to design the ideal implant position using the Simplant software. After the surgery, the postsurgical implant position was determined using an optical scan of the dentition cast and a series of custom registration models (the digital registration method). A simulated cylinder was designed using the Geomagic Studio software to represent the implant, and the deviation of the ideal and postsurgical implant position was calculated. The accuracy evaluated by the 2 methods was also compared. The parameters of the entrance point, apical point, and axis were recorded for each implant. A part of the alignment errors in the digital registration was calculated automatically and recorded. One sample t test and paired t test were conducted by using a statistical software program. Results. The mean deviation between the ideal and postsurgical implant positions evaluated using the digital registration method was 0.84 +/- 0.57 mm for the entrance point, 1.03 +/- 0.78 mm for the apical point, and 4.52 +/- 2.37 degrees for the angulation. No significant difference was found between the accuracy evaluated by the digital registration method and the radiographic method (P>.05). In the digital registration procedure, the alignment error was 0.03 mm for the registration model and 0.29 mm for the dentition. Significant differences were found in the alignment procedure of the impression cylinder (P<.001) and dentition (P<.001). The average positive and negative errors were +0.09 and -0.19 mm for the simulated cylinder of the ideal implant and +0.08 and -0.15 mm for the simulated cylinder of the postsurgical implant. Conclusions. The precision of the digital registration method could be accepted in clinical applications. No significant difference was found between the digital registration method and the radiographic method in evaluating the clinical accuracy of the implant position. The digital registration method was able to control and minimize the alignment errors produced during data processing.

Accuracy and patient-centered results of marker-based and marker-free registrations for dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled trial

The influence of radiographic marker registration versus a markerless trace registration method on the implant placement accuracy achieved by dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. An in-vitro study

Accuracy and patient-centered results of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in edentulous jaws: a retrospective cohort study

The impacts of registration‐and‐fixation device positioning on the performance of implant placement assisted by dynamic computer‐aided surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Accuracy Evaluation of 3D-Printed Noninvasive Adhesive Marker for Dynamic Navigation Implant Surgery in a Maxillary Edentulous Model: an in Vitro Study

Placement Accuracy and Primary Stability of Implants in the Esthetic Zone Using Dynamic and Static Computer-Assisted Navigation: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Accuracy of the evaluation of implant position using a completely digital registration method compared with a radiographic method.

[Research of Implant Accuracy Using a Digital Registration Method].

Comparison of the Accuracy of Immediate Implant Placement Using Static and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant System in the Esthetic Zone of the Maxilla: a Prospective Study.

Accuracy of implant placement with a combined use of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial

Digital Versus Radiographic Accuracy Evaluation of Guided Implant Surgery: an in Vitro Study

Accuracy of a dynamic navigation system for dental implantation with two different workflows and intraoral markers compared to static-guided implant surgery: An in-vitro study

Accuracy of markerless registration methods of DICOM and STL files used for computerized surgical guides in mandibles with metal restorations: An in vitro study

The accuracy of implant placement using a combination of static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous arches: A prospective controlled clinical study

Accuracy of Different Registration Areas Using Active and Passive Dynamic Navigation Systems in Dental Implant Surgery: an in Vitro Study.

The Effect of Fiducial Marker Number and Configuration on Registration Error in Dynamic Implant Surgery.

Comparative analysis of dental implant placement accuracy: Semi‐active robotic versus free‐hand techniques: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Effect of the Configurations of Fiducial Markers on the Accuracy of Surgical Navigation in Zygomatic Implant Placement: an in Vitro Study

The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement With Different Methods of Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

A Comparison of Accuracy among Different Approaches of Static‐guided Implant Placement in Patients Treated with Mandibular Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study

Accuracy of Intraoperative Measuring Guide and Conventional Surgical Guide in Anterior Implant Surgery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study