Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement Using Dynamic Navigation With Different Optical Tracking Systems: An In Vitro...

While dynamic navigation systems demonstrate superior precision in implant placement, the influence of variations in optical tracking technology on accuracy warrants further investigation.

To compare the accuracy of dynamic navigation for implant placement using active infrared (AI), passive infrared (PI), and passive blue light (PB) optical tracking technologies. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between the three alternative optical tracking technologies.

Three surgeons placed implants on 10 models using AI, PI, and PB optical tracking systems. Implants were placed on two sites per model (mandibular central incisors and mandibular first molar), with 180 implants assigned to be placed into 90 mandible models. The planned and placed implant positions were superimposed to assess procedural accuracy.

The mean coronal, apical, and axial deviations for all implants were 0.82 ± 0.02 mm, 0.92 ± 0.02 mm, and 1.56° ± 0.06°, respectively. In the mandibular left central incisors, the coronal, apical, and axial deviations of the PB and AI groups and the PB and PI groups were significantly different (p < 0.032, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively, and both p < 0.001). In the mandibular left first molar, the coronal, apical, and axial deviations of the PB and PI groups were significantly different (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). The coronal and apical deviations of the PB and AI groups exhibited statistically significant differences (both p < 0.001).

The PB optical tracking system outperformed the AI and PI optical tracking systems regarding dynamic navigation accuracy, while the AI and PI optical tracking systems were comparable. All systems exhibit sufficient accuracy in vitro.