Various guiding methods are used to place implants. This ex vivo pilot study used a convenience sample to examine time and accuracy for placement of 2 dental implants supporting a 3-unit fixed prosthesis on a simulation model using freehand and 3 guided placement techniques. Four operators with no prior implant placement experiences were randomly assigned placement of 2 maxillary or mandibular implants for a fixed prosthesis. Techniques included dynamic navigation (DN), static guide (SG), template-based guide (TBG), and freehand placement (FH). Preoperative and operative times were recorded. Discrepancies between the planned and placed implant positions were assessed by superimposing preoperative and postoperative cone beam computerized tomography scans. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures regression with Tukey's adjusted pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Dynamic navigation was associated with the longest operative time (13.5 minutes vs 5–10.2, P = .0001) but overall fastest when incorporating preoperative time (32.1 minutes vs 143–181.5, P < .0001). All deviation measures were significantly associated with the placement method (P < .05) except apex vertical deviation (P = .3925). Implants placed by SG had significantly lower entry 2-dimensional deviation than the other methods, particularly on the mandible. The DN and SG methods had significantly lower Apex 3D and overall angle deviations, again particularly on the mandible. The mandible had significantly higher deviations than maxilla. Within limitations of this study, implant placement by novice operators is more accurate when using dynamic and static guidance compared to freehand and template-based techniques.

You do not currently have access to this content.