Affiliation:
1. First Clinical Division Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices Beijing PR China
2. Department of Biostatistics Peking University Clinical Research Institute Beijing PR China
Abstract
AbstractObjectivesTo gauge the relative accuracy of the use of passive and active dynamic navigation systems when placing dental implants, and to determine how registration areas affect the performance of these systems.Materials and MethodsEighty implants were assigned to be placed into 40 total resin mandible models missing either the left or right first molars using either passive or active dynamic navigation system approaches. U‐shaped tube registration devices were fixed in the edentulous site for 20 models each on the left or right side. Planned and actual implant positions were superimposed to assess procedural accuracy, and parameters including 3D entry deviation, angular deviation, and 3D apex deviation were evaluated with Mann–Whitney U tests and Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests.ResultsRespective angular, entry, and apex deviation values of 1.563 ± 0.977°, 0.725 ± 0.268 mm, and 0.808 ± 0.284 mm were calculated for all included implants, with corresponding values of 1.388 ± 1.090°, 0.789 ± 0.285 mm, and 0.846 ± 0.301 mm in the active group and 1.739 ± 0.826°, 0.661 ± 0.236 mm, and 0.769 ± 0.264 mm in the passive group. Only angular deviation differed significantly among groups, and the registration area was not associated with any significant differences among groups.ConclusionsPassive and active dynamic navigation approaches can achieve comparable in vitro accuracy. Registration on one side of the missing single posterior tooth area in the mandible can complete single‐tooth implantation on both sides of the posterior teeth, highlighting the promise of further clinical research focused on this topic.