Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial compares implant placement accuracy in patients using two surgical systems, indicating similar effectiveness.
While virtual planning of implant placement is common, reliable clinical transfer remains critical. This randomized clinical trial compared transfer accuracy between a miniaturized dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery system (dCAIS; DENACAM) and static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS; BEGO). In 45 patients, 70 implants were placed (n = 35 per method). Deviations between planned and achieved positions were assessed by CBCT superimposition. Accuracy differences were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models (Type III F-tests; F, p-value, ICC) for 3D angular, 3D linear (implant base, tip), 2D mesio-distal, vestibulo-oral, and apico-coronal deviations. Ergonomic perception and covariate effects (age, sex, jaw, implant region, gap type) were analyzed using mixed-effects regression (β, 95% CI; α = 0.05). No significant accuracy differences were observed (p > 0.05). ICC values (0.00-0.56) indicated substantial patient-level variance. Mean 3D deviations (dynamic vs. static) were 4.89° ± 2.17 vs. 5.01° ± 2.13 (angular), 1.81 mm ± 0.69 vs. 1.55 mm ± 0.47 (base), 2.01 mm ± 0.72 vs. 1.78 mm ± 0.52 (tip). Ergonomic ratings were comparable. Covariate effects were limited to jaw (2D base deviation) and age (3D angular deviation) (p = 0.022, 0.015). This dCAIS may be equally suitable for implant plan transfer as sCAIS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huth et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: