Influence of experience on dental implant placement: an in vitro comparison of freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches

Abstract Purpose This study aimed to investigate the performance of novice versus experienced practitioners for placing dental implant using freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches. Methods A total of 72 implants were placed in 36 simulation models. Three experienced and three novi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Xiaotong Wang, Eman Shaheen, Sohaib Shujaat, Jan Meeus, Paul Legrand, Pierre Lahoud, Maurício do Nascimento Gerhardt, Constantinus Politis, Reinhilde Jacobs
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2022-10-01
Series:International Journal of Implant Dentistry
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00441-3
Description
Summary:Abstract Purpose This study aimed to investigate the performance of novice versus experienced practitioners for placing dental implant using freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches. Methods A total of 72 implants were placed in 36 simulation models. Three experienced and three novice practitioners were recruited for performing the osteotomy and implant insertion with freehand, surgical guide (pilot-drill guidance) and navigation (X-Guide, X-Nav technologies) approaches. Each practitioner inserted 4 implants per approach randomly with a 1-week gap to avoid memory bias (4 insertion sites × 3 approaches × 6 practitioners = 72 implants). The performance of practitioners was assessed by comparing actual implant deviation to the planned position, time required for implant placement and questionnaire-based self-confidence evaluation of practitioners on a scale of 1–30. Results The navigation approach significantly improved angular deviation compared with freehand (P < 0.001) and surgical guide (P < 0.001) irrespective of the experience. Surgical time with navigation was significantly longer compared to the freehand approach (P < 0.001), where experienced practitioners performed significantly faster compared to novice practitioners (P < 0.001). Overall, self-confidence was higher in favor of novice practitioners with both guided approaches. In addition, the confidence of novice practitioners (median score = 26) was comparable to that of experienced practitioners (median score = 27) for placing implants with the navigation approach. Conclusions Dynamic navigation system could act as a viable tool for dental implant placement. Unlike freehand and static-guided approaches, novice practitioners showed comparable accuracy and self-confidence to that of experienced practitioners with the navigation approach. Graphical Abstract
ISSN:2198-4034