Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2025
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
Learning curve of dynamic navigation-assisted zygomatic implant surgery: An in vitro study
Wenying Wang1, Minjie Zhuang1, Baoxin Tao1
1Graduate student, Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Center for Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, PR China.
Statement Of Problem:
Dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (dCAZIS) has been reported to provide clinical efficacy with high accuracy and low risk of complications. However, the learning curve before performing dCAZIS effectively is unknown.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to explore the learning curve of dCAZIS in dentists with different levels of experience in implant dentistry and navigation surgery.
Material And Methods:
Six senior dental students were randomly divided into 3 groups for initial training (FH-CI group: pretraining on freehand conventional implant surgery; FH-ZI group: pretraining on freehand ZI surgery; DN-CI group: pretraining on conventional implant surgery under dynamic navigation). Then, every operator conducted 6 repeated dCAZIS training sessions on edentulous 3-dimensional (3D) printed skull models and was asked to complete a self-report questionnaire after each training session. A total of 36 postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans with 144 ZI osteotomy site preparations were obtained and superimposed over the preoperative design for accuracy measurements. The operation time, 3D deviations, and results of the self-reports were recorded. Comparisons among groups were analyzed with independent-sample Kruskal-Wallis tests (α=.05), and correlations between study outcomes and the number of practices were calculated.
Results:
Operator experience and increased practice times did not significantly affect the accuracy of dCAZIS (P>.05). However, the operation time varied among groups (P<.001), and significantly shortened with more practice, reaching 11.51 ±1.68 minutes at the fifth attempt in the FH-CI group (P<.001 compared with the first practice), 14.48 ±3.07 minutes at the third attempt in the FH-ZI group (P=.038), and 8.68 ±0.58 minutes at the sixth attempt in the DN-CI group (P<.001). All groups reached their own learning curve plateau stage within 6 practice sessions. As the number of practice sessions increased, the results from the self-report questionnaires gradually improved.
Conclusions:
Among dentists with different levels of experience in implant dentistry and navigation surgery, dCAZIS was found to have a learning curve with respect to operation time but not implant accuracy. Experience in ZI surgery had little impact on the learning curve of dCAZIS, but experience in navigation surgery was a key factor.
