Abstract: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.

Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guides and the freehand approach in implant placement: a prospective clinical study

Accuracy of dental implant surgery with robotic position feedback and registration algorithm: An <i>in</i>-<i>vitro</i> study

Accuracy of dynamic navigation compared to static surgical guide for dental implant placement

Accuracy assessment of dynamic navigation during implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies in the last 10 years

Surgical performance of dental students using computer-assisted dynamic navigation and freehand approaches

The accuracy and learning curve of active and passive dynamic navigation-guided dental implant surgery: An in vitro study

Turnover Capacity of Coprinus cinereus Peroxidase for Phenol and Monosubstituted Phenols

Accuracy and Self-Confidence Level of Freehand Drilling and Dynamic Navigation System of Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Dynamic Navigation in Implant Placement with a Fully Digital Approach: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Dynamic navigation vs. static navigation in implant placement: A meta-analysis

Accuracy and Efficiency of a Calibration Approach in Dynamic Navigation for Implant Placement: an in Vitro Study

Computer-guided implant surgery: analysis of dynamic navigation systems and digital accuracy

Comparison of the accuracy of dynamic navigation and the free hand approaches in the placement of pterygoid implants in the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

Accuracy of 3 Calibration Methods of Computer-Assisted Dynamic Navigation for Implant Placement: an in Vitro Study

Accuracy of implant placement with computer-aided static, dynamic, and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

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

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 dental implant surgery using dynamic navigation and robotic systems: An in vitro study

Accuracy of Implant Placement using a Mixed Reality-Based Dynamic Navigation System versus Static Computer-Assisted and Freehand Surgery: an in Vitro Study

[Possibilities of MR evaluation in thyroid orbitopathy].

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