Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The invention of computerized axial tomography (now known as computerized tomography) and developments of interactive software to allow virtual planning, with the aim to guide the surgery precisely toward a specific target, has dramatically improved general, as well as oral, surgery. Virtual dental implant planning allows for a prosthetically driven approach, resulting in the best possible design of the prosthesis, better esthetics, optimized occlusion and loading. This approach has also changed the surgical paradigm of using extensive flaps to obtain a proper view of the surgical area because flapless implant surgery, with or without immediate loading, has become more predictable. Two types of guided implant surgery protocols - static and dynamic - are described in the literature. The static approach, better known as computer-guided surgery, refers to the use of a tissue-supported surgical template. This reproduces the virtual implant position directly from computerized tomographic data and this information can be converted to guide templates to be used during surgery, with or without raising a mucoperiosteal flap. Dynamic guided surgery, also called navigation, reproduces the virtual implant position directly from computerized tomographic data and uses motion-tracking technology to guide the implant osteotomy preparation. As the technology developed further, different levels of evidence were presented that showed various degrees of accuracy. Several protocols for guided surgery are available in the literature and are distinguished by different guide production techniques, methods of support and drilling/placement protocols. Currently, implant planning software using cone-beam computerized tomography data has made it possible to plan the optical implant position virtually the optimal implant position, taking the surrounding vital anatomic structures and future prosthetic requirements into consideration. This paper summarizes the evolution and ongoing trends in digital and virtual planning and in implant surgery. The purpose of this overview was to clarify the different concepts in guided surgery and their respective advantages, disadvantages and limitations. The outcome of guided surgery is assessed in terms of implant survival, precision and complications. Clinical cases are given to demonstrate briefly the workflow and clinical guidelines for safe use of these approaches.
D’haese et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: