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.

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

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

Accuracy of Automatic and Manual Dynamic Navigation Registration Techniques for Dental Implant Surgery in Posterior Sites Missing a Single Tooth: A Retrospective Clinical Analysis.

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

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

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

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

Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: an in Vitro 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

The accuracy of dynamic computer assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous jaws: A retrospective case series

A Registration-and-fixation Approach with Handpiece Adjustment for Dynamic Navigation in Dental Implant Surgery.

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.

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

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

A Comparative Prospective Study on the Accuracy and Efficiency of Autonomous Robotic System Versus Dynamic Navigation System in Dental Implant Placement

Effect of a Dynamic Navigation Device on the Accuracy of Implant Placement in the Completely Edentulous Mandible: an in Vitro Study

Comparison of accuracy between single posterior immediate and delayed implants placed using computer guided implant surgery and a digital laser printed surgical guide: A clinical investigation

Accuracy of navigation guided implant surgery for immediate loading complete arch restorations: Prospective clinical trial

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 an autonomous dental implant robotic system versus static guide-assisted implant surgery: A retrospective clinical study