OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the amount of distortion using computer-guided implant surgery with 3D printed surgical guides in limited edentulous spaces.
METHODS: 25 bone level self-tapping implants (Straumann® BL and BLT) were randomly inserted in either distal or intercalary posterior mandibular edentulism using a fully digital protocol and 3D printed surgical guides. Amount of inaccuracy was evaluated after superimposing the 3 coordinates of virtually planned and final implant images, which were obtained using intra-oral scans and scan bodies. Four evaluation parameters were considered: origo-displacement, error depth, apical displacement and angle between the planned and the placed implant.
RESULTS: The average of distortion was 0.71 mm for the origo-displacement, 0.36 mm for the error depth, 0.52 mm for the horizontal displacement and 3.34º for the error angle.
CONCLUSIONS: The major reason of exclusion was CBCT artifacts. Results of this study were aligned with the results of previous studies concerning partially edentulous spaces. CAD/CAM manufacturing process did not result in significant distortion whilst the biggest part of distortions originated from the surgical process. The learning curve in computer-guided implant surgery presented an important source of inaccuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess navigation accuracy for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading of digitally prefabricated provisional.
METHODS: Consecutive edentulous and terminal dentition patients requiring at least one complete-arch FDP were treated between December 2020 and January 2022. Accuracy was evaluated by superimposing pre-operative and post-operative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), recording linear (mm) and angular (degrees) deviations. T-tests were performed to investigate the potential effect of the registration algorithm (fiducial-based vs. fiducial-free), type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm (teeth vs. bone screws), site characteristic (healed vs. post-extractive), implant angulation (axial vs. tilted), type of arch (maxilla vs. mandible) on the accuracy with p-value <0.05.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients, 36 complete-arches, and 161 implants were placed. The overall mean angular deviation was 2.19° (SD 1.26°). The global platform and apex mean deviations were 1.17 mm (SD 0.57 mm), and 1.30 mm (SD 0.62 mm). Meaningful global platform (p = 0.0009) and apical (p = 0.0109) deviations were experienced only between healed and post-extraction sites. None of the analyzed variables significantly influenced angular deviation. Minor single-axis deviations were reported for the type of jaw (y-axis at implant platform and apex), registration algorithm (y-axis platform and z-axis deviations), and type of references for the fiducial-free algorithm. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to implant angulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the study limitations navigation was reliable for complete-arch implant placement with immediate loading digitally pre-fabricated FDP. AI-driven surface anatomy identification and calibration protocol made fiducial-free registration as accurate as fiducial-based, teeth and bone screws equal as references. Implant site characteristics were the only statistically significant variable with healed sites reporting higher accuracy compared to post-extractive. Live-tracked navigation surgery enhanced operator performance and accuracy regardless of implant angulation and type of jaw. A mean safety room of about 1 mm and 2° should be considered.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether inexperienced users applying a static navigation system can perform in-vitro a fully guided implant placement protocol and achieve similar results in terms of accuracy compared to experienced clinicians.
METHODS: Based on 36 identical resin models, a computer-assisted implant planning was performed and a surgical guide was produced accordingly. Three study groups were composed with 12 operators, each: control group with experienced surgeons (DOC), test group 1 with dental technicians (TEC) and test group 2 with non-specialists (OFC). Using a fully guided drilling protocol, two implants were placed into each of the 36 models. Subsequently, the differences between the virtually planned and final implant positions were determined and the transfer accuracy was evaluated.
RESULTS: For the control group DOC, the mean value of axial deviation was 1.90 ± 1.15 degrees, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant base 0.52 ± 0.33 mm, for 3-dimensional deviation at the implant tip 0.76 ± 0.39 mm and for vertical deviation at the implant tip - 0.11 ± 0.51 mm. For corresponding parameters, the mean values of test group TEC were 1.99 ± 0.87 degrees, 0.42 ± 0.21 mm, 0.68 ± 0.30 mm and - 0.03 ± 0.33 mm and for test group OFC 2.29 ± 1.17 degrees, 0.63 ± 0.35 mm, 0.89 ± 0.43 mm and - 0.24 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. The results did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the control and the 2 test groups (p˃0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present in-vitro study demonstrated that inexperienced users applying a static navigation system can perform a fully guided implant placement protocol and achieve similar results in terms of accuracy compared to experienced clinicians in this specific in vitro setup.

To evaluate the three-dimensional (3D) stability and accuracy of additively manufactured surgical templates fabricated using two different 3D printers and materials.
Forty surgical templates were designed and printed using two different 3D printers: the resin group (n = 20) used a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer with photopolymer resin, and the metal group (n = 20) employed a selective laser melting (SLM) 3D printer with titanium alloy. All surgical templates were scanned immediately after production and re-digitalized after one month of storage. Similarly, the implant simulations were performed twice. Three-dimensional congruency between the original design and the manufactured surgical templates was quantified using the root mean square (RMS), and the definitive and planned implant positions were determined and compared.
At the postproduction stage, the metal templates exhibited higher accuracy than the resin templates (p < 0.001), and these differences persisted after one month of storage (p < 0.001). The resin templates demonstrated a significant decrease in three-dimensional stability after one month of storage (p < 0.001), whereas the metal templates were not affected (p > 0.05). No significant differences in implant accuracy were found between the two groups. However, the resin templates showed a significant increase in apical and angular deviations after one month of storage (p < 0.001), whereas the metal templates were not affected (p > 0.05).
Printed metal templates showed higher fabrication accuracy than printed resin templates. The three-dimensional stability and implant accuracy of printed metal templates remained unaffected by one month of storage.
With superior three-dimensional stability and acceptable implant accuracy, printed metal templates can be considered a viable alternative technique for guided surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical guides have been proposed in an attempt to reach more predictable outcomes for esthetic crown lengthening. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of esthetic crown lengthening using 3D-printed surgical guides in the management of excessive gingival display due to altered passive eruption type 1B.
METHODS: Sixteen patients diagnosed with altered passive eruption type 1B, were divided into two groups. In the control group, the procedure was carried out conventionally, and in the study group, a dual surgical guide was used. The parameters of wound healing (swelling, color, probing depth, bleeding index, and plaque index), pain scores, gingival margin stability, and operating time were assessed at 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in terms of wound healing, pain scores, and gingival margin stability between both groups at different time intervals (P = 1), however, there was a statistical difference between both groups in terms of operating time with the study group being significantly lower (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Digitally assisted esthetic crown lengthening helps shorten the operating time and reduces the possibility of human errors during the measurements. This will be useful in helping practitioners achieve better results.
CONCLUSIONS: The conventional method remains to be the gold standard. However, shorter operating time and lower margins for errors will help reduce costs as the chair side time is reduced as well as the possibility for a second surgery is lower. This will improve patient satisfaction as well.

OBJECTIVE: The present experiment aimed to evaluate the placement accuracy of fully guided implant surgery using a mucosa-supported surgical guide when the protocol of osteotomy and installation was modified (MP) compared to when the protocol was sequentially and conventionally carried out (CP).
METHODS: For 24 mandibular dentiform models, 12 dentists (6 experts and 6 beginners) performed fully guided implant placements two times at the right first and second molar sites using a mucosa-supported surgical guide, once by the CP (CP group) and at the other time by the MP (MP group). The presurgical and postsurgical stereolithographic images were superimposed, and the deviations between the virtually planned and actually placed implant positions and the procedure time were compared statistically (P < .05).
RESULTS: The accuracies were similar in the CP and MP groups. In the CP group, the mean platform and apex deviations at the second molar site for the beginners were +0.75 mm and +1.14 mm, respectively, which were significantly larger than those for the experts (P < .05). In the MP group, only the mean vertical deviation at the second molar site for the beginners (+0.53 mm) was significantly larger than that for the experts (P < .05). The procedure time was significantly longer for the MP group (+94.0 sec) than for the CP group (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: In fully guided implant surgery using a mucosa-supported guide, the MP may improve the placement accuracy when compared to the CP, especially at sites farther from the most-posterior natural tooth.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the precision and efficiency of a novel guide system for single implant placement in the mandibular symphyses and to evaluate whether the outcome is affected by the level of operator experience.
METHODS: A total of 90 implants were placed in three different mandibular cast types (Cawood and Howell class III, IV, and V). For each model, a complete denture was 3D printed. A polyether ether ketone rail with a guide sleeve was embedded in the middle of the denture. To determine the ideal implant position, the sleeve could be moved in a buccolingual direction. Adjustment of implant angulation was possible, and an angle correction of 0, 12, or 24 degrees was available. A total of 30 clinicians were divided into three groups: group 1 (experienced, n = 10), group 2 (beginner, n = 10), and group 3 (inexperienced, n = 10). Each clinician was asked to plan and perform a guided flapless implant placement in the mandibular symphysis. Two preoperative CBCT scans were taken; the first was to verify the planning, and the second was to adjust the planning if needed. Finally, a postoperative CBCT scan was taken to compare the planning to the final implant position.
RESULTS: Based on the first CBCT, the clinicians adjusted their planning by an average of 1.66 ± 1.65 mm coronally, 2.41 ± 2.44 mm apically, and by a mean angular correction of 6.08 ± 0.77 degrees. After implant placement, the mean deviation from the planned implant position was 0.87 ± 0.58 mm at the coronal aspect and 0.98 ± 0.64 mm at the apical aspect. The mean angular deviation was 6.05 ± 0.71 degrees. Overall, there were no significant differences in coronal and apical deviation (P > .05) based on the level of experience. In terms of angulation, a significant difference was found in both planning (P = .049) and placement (P = .038) between beginners and experienced clinicians.
CONCLUSIONS: Guided implant placement of a single implant in the mandibular symphysis using a removable denture with guide sleeve had an acceptable level of accuracy. Clinicians with limited experience spent more time on the procedure, resulting in less angular deviation during implant planning and placement compared to experienced clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Efficient utilization of residual bone volume and the prevention of inferior alveolar nerve injury are critical considerations in immediate implant placement (IIP) within the posterior mandibular region. Addressing these challenges, this study focuses on the clinical efficacy and implant accuracy of dynamic real-time navigation, an emerging technology designed to enhance precision in implantation procedures.
METHODS: This study included 84 patients with 130 implants undergoing immediate placement in the posterior mandibular region. Stratified into dynamic navigation, static guide plate, and freehand implant groups, clinical indicators, including initial stability, distance to the inferior alveolar nerve canal, depth of implant placement, and various deviations, were systematically recorded. Statistical analysis, employing 1- or 2-way ANOVA and Student\'s t-test, allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of each technique.
RESULTS: All 130 implants were successfully placed with an average torque of 22.53 ± 5.93 N.cm. In the navigation group, the distance to the inferior alveolar nerve and the depth of implant placement were significantly greater compared to the guide plate and freehand groups (P < 0.05). Implant deviation was significantly smaller in both the navigation and guide plate groups compared to the freehand group(P < 0.05). Additionally, the navigation group exhibited significantly reduced root and angle deviations compared to the guide plate group(P < 0.05), highlighting the superior precision of navigation-assisted immediate implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS: It is more advantageous to use dynamic navigation rather than a static guide plate and free-hand implant insertion for immediate posterior mandibular implant implantation.

Digital workflows have become integral in orthodontic diagnosis and therapy, reducing risk factors and chair time with one-visit protocols. This study assessed the transfer accuracy of fully digital planned insertion guides for orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) compared with freehanded insertion. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) datasets and intraoral surface scans of 32 cadaver maxillae were used to place 64 miniscrews in the anterior palate. Three groups were formed, two using printed insertion guides (A and B) and one with freehand insertion (C). Group A used commercially available customized surgical templates and Group B in-house planned and fabricated insertion guides. Postoperative CBCT datasets were superimposed with the planning model, and accuracy measurements were performed using orthodontic software. Statistical differences were found for transverse angular deviations (4.81° in A vs. 12.66° in B and 5.02° in C, p = 0.003) and sagittal angular deviations (2.26° in A vs. 2.20° in B and 5.34° in C, p = 0.007). However, accurate insertion depth was not achieved in either guide group; Group A insertion was too shallow (-0.17 mm), whereas Group B insertion was deeper (+0.65 mm) than planned. Outsourcing the planning and fabrication of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing insertion guides may be beneficial for certain indications; particularly, in this study, commercial templates demonstrated superior accuracy than our in-house-fabricated insertion guides.

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the accuracy of immediate implant placement with freehand and static guided surgery.
An RCT was conducted on 61 subjects who received a total of 80 dental implants. The enrolled patients were randomly allocated to two groups: freehand surgery (control group, n = 40 implants) and static guided surgery with R2Gate® (Megagen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea, test group, n = 40 implants). Crestal and apical deviations in both mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions, as well as depth and angular deviations, were calculated by comparing the three-dimensional (3D) position of the implant in the planning software with the final implant position, revealed by an intraoral scan of the fixture after placement. The Mann-Whitney test was used for comparative assessment.
In the freehand group (control), crestal deviations of 1.13 ± 0.89 mm and 1.00 ± 0.76 mm were found in the mesiodistal and buccolingual directions, respectively, versus 0.34 ± 0.26 mm (p<0.001) and 0.37 ± 0.24 mm (p = 0.03) in the static guided surgery group (test). Apical deviation was also higher in the freehand group (control) than in the static guided surgery group (test) in the mesiodistal (4.04 ± 1.90 mm vs. 0.97 ± 0.55 mm, p = 0.04) and buccolingual directions (3.46 ± 1.82 mm vs. 0.94 ± 0.67 mm, p = 0.02). Freehand surgery had greater angular deviation (6.09° ± 3.23) compared to guided surgery (0.83° ± 0.53, p = 0.02). However, depth deviation was similar in the freehand surgery group (2.24 ± 1.58 mm) and static guided surgery group (0.66 ± 0.43, p = 0.09).
Immediate implant placement with static guided surgery demonstrated better accuracy than freehand surgery.
Guided implant surgery showed fewer deviations compared to freehand surgery in fresh extraction sockets; therefore, the use of static guides should be given preference over the freehand modality.