OBJECTIVE: To characterize the intra- and inter-operator reliability of a CT-based 3D preoperative planning software.
METHODS: This study analyzed 30 CT scans of de-identified knees with osteoarthritis. For each scan, a case planner segmented the bones and pre-planned the TKA. Three orthopedic surgeons then reviewed each pre-planning three times at least one week apart, in a blinded manner. During the reviews, the surgeons modified the pre-plannings until they felt the plannings matched the objectives defined collegially at the beginning of the study. Reliability was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM).
RESULTS: The intra- and inter-operator reliabilities for implant size selection were almost perfect (ICC between 0.97 and 0.99). Implants of same sizes were selected in 67.1-90.0% of cases. For implant placements, almost perfect intra- and inter-operator reliability was observed in all degrees-of-freedom (ICC between 0.81 and 1.00), except in flexion-extension for the femur (intra-operator ICC between: 0.76 and 0.99; inter-operator ICC of 0.61) and the tibia (intra-operator ICC between 0.12 and 1.00; inter-operator ICC of 0.03). All implant placements SEM were below 1.3 mm or 1.7°.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed high intra- and inter-operator reliability for implant size selection and, in most of the degrees-of-freedom, also for implant placements. Further research is needed to evaluate the benefit of developing more precise means of describing the objectives of the surgical planning as well as to evaluate the possibility and relevance of adding features in the planning software to assist the operators.

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography is considered the gold-standard imaging tool to evaluate spinal implant accuracy. However, there are no studies that evaluate the accuracy of robotic sacroiliac joint (SIJ) implant placement using CT to date. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement on CT between robotic and fluoroscopic navigation for SIJ fusion and the subsequent complications and clinical outcomes of suboptimally placed screws.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of SIJ fusions utilizing either robotic or fluoroscopic guidance at a single institution was conducted from 2014 to 2023. Implant placement accuracy was evaluated on intra- or postoperative CT. Primary endpoints were SIJ screw placement accuracy and complications. Secondary endpoints were pain status at the first and second follow-ups and rates of 2-year revision surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients who underwent 78 SIJ fusions were included, of which 63 were robotic and 15 were fluoroscopic. The mean age of the cohort at the time of surgery was 55.9 ± 14.2 years, and 35 patients (50.7%) were female. There were 135 robotically placed and 34 fluoroscopically placed implants. A significant difference was found in implant placement accuracy between robotic and fluoroscopic fusion (97.8% vs 76.5%, p < 0.001). When comparing optimal versus suboptimal implant placement, no difference was found in the presence of 30-day complications (p = 0.98). No intraoperative complications were present in this cohort. No difference was found in subjective pain status at the first (p = 0.69) and second (p = 0.45) follow-ups between optimal and suboptimal implant placement. No patients underwent 2-year revision surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of robotic navigation was significantly more accurate than the use of fluoroscopic navigation for SIJ implant placement. Complications overall were low and not different between optimally and suboptimally placed implants. Suboptimally placed implants did not differ in degree of subjective pain improvement or rates of revision surgery postoperatively.

To determine the current status and accuracy of robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) applications by examining the associated clinical and experimental outcomes.
PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 2000 and November 2023, and focusing on robotic CAIS in dental implant surgery. All search results were then manually reviewed to identify only the pertinent articles. Only in vitro and clinical studies were included in this narrative review, with implant placement accuracy considered the main outcome.
Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 21 studies (with 1085 implant sites); of them, 8 were clinical studies, 12 were in vitro studies, and 1 included both an in vitro study and a case series. The ranges of the mean implant shoulder, apical, and angular deviations were respectively 0.43-1.04 mm, 0.53-1.06 mm, and 0.77°-3.77° in the clinical studies and 0.23-1.04 mm, 0.24-2.13 mm, and 0.43°-3.78° in the in vitro studies, respectively.
The accuracy of robotic CAIS in dental implant procedures appears to be within the clinically acceptable ranges. However, further relevant clinical trials validating the existing evidence are needed.
Robotic CAIS can achieve clinically acceptable implant placement accuracy. This innovative technology may improve the precision and success rates of dental implant procedures, with benefit for surgeons and patients.

Introduction The current research sets out to assess implant early survival rates and identify relevant parameters. Methods The research spanned the years 2021 and 2022 and included all individuals who had dental implants. Various criteria, such as age, sex, maxilla/mandible, implant location, immediate implant, implant diameter, implant length, and others, were used to determine the implant survival rate in the research. A multiple logistic regression model was used to show the risk variables for early survival rates of implants, and components with p < 0.05 were further included after the Chi-square test was employed to filter them. Results The current research included 128 patients who had a single implant procedure, including 70 males and 58 females. The early survival rate was 91.40%, and 117 implants were retained after implantation. Risk variables that were shown to be associated with early survival rates were patients aged 30-60 years (OR: 2.542), immediate implant placement (OR: 3.742), and implant length less than 10 mm (OR: 3.972). Conclusions Age, tooth location, implant length, and immediate implantation were risk variables that contributed to our subjects\' above 91% early survival rate of implants.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of implant timing and type of soft-tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical model.
METHODS: Four implant placement protocols were randomly applied at the mesial root sites of the third and fourth mandibular premolars in 10 mongrel dogs: immediate placement (group IP), early placement (group EP), delayed placement with/without alveolar ridge preservation (groups ARP and DP, respectively). A connective-tissue graft (CTG) or porcine-derived volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) was applied to enhance the ridge profile (simultaneously with implant placement in group IP and staged for others), resulting in five sites for each combination. All dogs were sacrificed 3 months after soft-tissue grafting. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed, and the data were analysed descriptively.
RESULTS: CTG and VCMX were difficult to differentiate from the augmented area. The median total tissue thickness on the buccal aspect of the implant was largest in group IP/CTG (between 2.78 and 3.87 mm). The soft-tissue thickness was generally favourable with CTG at all implant placement timings. Within the DP groups, CTG yielded statistically significantly larger total and soft-tissue thickness than VCMX (p < .05). Among the groups with VCMX, group EP/VCMX showed the largest soft-tissue thickness at apical levels to the implant shoulder.
CONCLUSIONS: CTG generally led to greater tissue thickness than VCMX.

To investigate whether transmucosal healing is as effective as submerged healing in terms of buccal bone regeneration when guided bone regeneration (GBR) is performed simultaneously with implant placement.
In six dogs, buccal dehiscence defects were created in the edentulous mandibular ridge, sized 5 × 5 × 3 mm (length × height × depth). In each defect, a bone-level implant was placed, and four experimental groups were randomly assigned as follows: (i) transmucosal healing with GBR (T-GBR), (ii) transmucosal healing without GBR (T-control), (iii) submerged healing with GBR (S-GBR) and (iv) submerged healing without GBR (S-control). Data analyses were based on histological slides 5 months after implant placement.
The T-GBR group showed significant differences compared to the control groups regarding defect height resolution, buccal bone thickness and mineralized tissue area (p < .05), but showed no significant differences when compared with the S-GBR group (p > .05).
The mode of healing (transmucosal vs. submerged) does not influence bone regeneration at implant sites. The clinician may therefore choose the approach based on further clinical and patient-specific parameters.

The paper explores the correlation between osteointegration and dental implant stability, investigating the relationship and its implications for successful outcomes in implant dentistry. Osteointegration, defined as the direct structural and functional connection between living bone and the implant surface, plays a crucial role in determining the stability and long-term success of dental implants. This review synthesizes current knowledge from scientific literature and clinical studies to elucidate the factors influencing osteointegration and their impact on implant stability. Surface characteristics of implants, such as topography and chemistry, as well as the surgical techniques employed during implant placement, are examined in detail, emphasizing their significant influence on osseointegration and subsequent implant stability. Additionally, host-related factors such as bone quality, systemic conditions, and patient-specific considerations are explored to further comprehend the complexity of the osteointegration process. The abstract underscores the importance of achieving an optimal bone-implant interface to ensure successful implant integration and stability. Furthermore, emerging technologies and materials, such as computer-guided implant placement and biomimetic surfaces, are discussed for their potential to enhance osteointegration and improve long-term implants.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare dental implant placement accuracy of three surgical guide fabrication methods: single (SCT) and double computed tomography (DCT), and a newly developed modified SCT (MSCT) scan method.
METHODS: A total of 183 cases (183 surgical guides, and 485 implants) of static-guide-assisted implant placement surgery using the SCT, DCT, or MSCT methods in a dental clinic were included in the study. Three-dimensional (3D) deviations (mm) at the entry and tip of the implant body between preoperative simulation and actual placement were measured as surrogate endpoints of implant placement accuracy. The following survey details were collected from medical records and CT data: sex, age at implant placement surgery, surgical guide fabrication method, number of remaining teeth, implant length, implant location, alveolar bone quality, and bone surface inclination at implant placement site in preoperative simulation, etc. Risk factors for reducing implant placement accuracy were investigated using generalized estimating equations.
RESULTS: The SCT and DCT methods (odds ratios [ORs] vs. MSCT method: 1.438, 1.178, respectively), posterior location (OR: 1.114), bone surface buccolingual inclination (OR: 0.997), and age at implant placement surgery (OR: 0.995) were significant risk factors for larger 3D deviation at the entry; the SCT (OR: 1.361) and DCT methods (OR: 1.418), posterior location (OR: 1.190), implant length (OR: 1.051), and age at implant placement surgery (OR: 0.995) were significant risk factors for larger 3D deviation at the tip of the implant body.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement accuracy was better using the MSCT method compared to the SCT and DCT methods.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a recently introduced implant placement micromotor that provides site-specific, operator independent cancellous bone density measurements can detect the presence of a cortical bone layer and measure its thickness and density.
METHODS: An in vitro experiment was performed on six double-layer polyurethane foam blocks mimicking the jawbone with different cortical thickness/cancellous density combinations. The densities were measured using the micromotor after either removing the cortical layer or leaving it intact, both with and without irrigation.
RESULTS: The results were compared by means of nonparametric statistical tests. Independent of irrigation, the micromotor detected the cortical layer when it was left intact and accurately estimated its thickness. The micromotor did not discriminate between blocks when they were considered separately, but it did when they were grouped into four or three classes.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that the micromotor may represent a valid device to quantitatively assess bone quality and density. If the micromotor can quantitatively distinguish different cortical/cancellous bone combinations in humans, it may be a helpful tool for performing finely tuned, patient-tailored preparations of the implant seat, making tooth rehabilitation in challenging clinical conditions more predictable.

OBJECTIVE: The growing demand for implants has led to their implementation by general dental practitioners (GDPs) in clinical practice. The present study assessed referral patterns of GDPs for the surgical phase of implant dental treatment.
METHODS: One hundred fifty GDPs were asked to fill out a structured questionnaire containing their demographic data and answer six questions characterising their referral patterns for implant dentistry.
RESULTS: Forty-one (41%) percent performed the surgical phase, and 87% provided implant restoration. Gender was the only influencing factor for the surgical phase, as 51.4% of male GDPs and 6.5% of female GDPs performed implant surgery themselves. Experience and practice set-up did not influence the referring decision. Fifty-four percent of the practitioners referred 0 to 5 patients per month, and the chosen specialists were: 80% oral and maxillofacial surgeon, 11% periodontist, and 9% selected a specialist depending on the individual case. The major reasons influencing the referral pattern were the complexity of the surgical procedure, followed by systemic medical compromise of the patient.
CONCLUSIONS: Most implant surgeries in Israel are still performed by specialists.