Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 5, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Clinical and tomographic comparison of dental implants placed by guided virtual surgery versus conventional
Gabriel L Magrin1,2, Stela N F Rafael3, Bernardo B Passoni1
1Department of Dentistry, Center of Education and Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina / UFSC, Florianopolis, Brazil.
Aim:
Our objective was to compare guided virtual surgery to conventional surgery in terms of angular deviation of single dental implants placed in the posterior mandible.
Materials And Methods:
Patients with bilateral homologous single teeth missing in the posterior mandible were eligible for this split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed for virtual planning of implant position and manufacturing of the stereolithographic guides. One week after the surgery, a second CBCT scan was superimposed to the initial planning. Primary endpoint was the angular deviation between virtual and clinical implant position. Secondary endpoints were linear deviations and patient-reported outcomes collected with a questionnaire.
Results:
Data from 12 patients were available for analysis. Angular deviation was significantly lower using stereolithographic guides as compared to conventional guides (2.2 ± 1.1° vs. 3.5 ± 1.6°, p = .042). Linear deviations were similar for both techniques in the coronal (2.34 ± 1.01 vs. 1.93 ± 0.95 mm) and apical (2.53 ± 1.11 vs. 2.19 ± 1.00 mm) dimensions (p ˃ .05). The selection of the surgical technique had no significant impact on the patient-reported outcomes.
Conclusion:
Our data suggest that the angular discrepancy between the virtual and the clinical implant position is slightly lower when using stereolithographic guides as compared to conventional guides.
