Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2026
08:15
3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects
Published on: August 4, 2020
A Practical, Descriptive Comparison of Seven Guided Implant Surgery Planning Software Using Clinical Scenarios.
Łukasz Zadrożny1, Jaafar Abduo2, Vygandas Rutkunas3
1Department of Dental Propaedeutics and Prophylaxis, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-006 Warsaw, Poland.
Journal of Dentistry
|June 27, 2026
Summary
This study compared implant planning software, finding significant variability in usability and cost. A key limitation across platforms is the restricted availability of prosthetic components, hindering fully digital workflows.
Area of Science:
- Dental Implantology
- Digital Dentistry
- Surgical Planning Software
Background:
- Guided implant surgery relies on specialized planning software.
- Evaluating contemporary software is crucial for optimizing digital workflows.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare clinical planning software for guided implant surgery.
- Focus on digital workflow, user experience, costs, and prosthetic libraries.
Main Methods:
- Seven software platforms were evaluated by experienced clinicians.
- User interface, planning time, system requirements, and cost models were assessed.
Main Results:
- Significant variability in user interface scores and planning times observed.
- Only two platforms allowed complete planning within a single environment.
- Limited prosthetic component libraries were a consistent issue across all software.
Conclusions:
- Current implant planning software shows substantial variability in integration, usability, and cost.
- Restricted prosthetic libraries present a persistent gap in achieving fully prosthetically driven digital workflows.
- Clinicians should consider software limitations and verify prosthetic feasibility.
