Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2026
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.
Objectives:
To provide a practical and descriptive comparison of contemporary clinical planning software for guided implant surgery, focusing on digital workflow feasibility, user experience, system requirements, cost models, and the availability of prosthetic component libraries, based on real‑world expert use.
Methods:
Seven implant planning software platforms (DentiqGuide, BlueSkyPlan, CoDiagnostix, Implant Studio, R2Gate, ExoPlan, and RealGuide) were evaluated by experienced clinicians using two predefined clinical scenarios representing moderate and high planning complexity. User interface (UI) friendliness was assessed using a Likert scale, and planning time was recorded according to standardized task definitions. Hardware requirements, pricing models, available functionalities, and workflow completeness were compared. All quantitative outcomes were analysed descriptively.
Results:
Descriptive values of UI scores ranged from 5.3 to 10, while planning times ranged from 10 to 67 minutes depending on workflow completeness and task availability. Based on a predefined complete workflow (CW), only DentiqGuide and BlueSkyPlan enabled completion of all planning steps within a single clinical software environment, whereas other platforms required additional modules or external tools. System requirements and cost structures differed substantially, including license‑based and pay‑per‑use models. Semi‑automated functions, such as wax‑up-guided implant positioning, were available in several platforms. However, none provided fully automated planning. A consistent limitation across all evaluated software was restricted availability of prosthetic components within integrated libraries.
Conclusions:
Within the limits of this descriptive, expert‑based evaluation, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis‑generating rather than as comparative performance rankings. However, current clinical implant planning software may demonstrate substantial variability in workflow integration, usability and cost structure, and a common limitation in the availability of prosthetic component libraries. These findings highlight a persistent gap in achieving fully prosthetically driven digital workflows in clinical planning environments. The present findings reflect expert-dependent interaction with individual software platforms and were not validated using inter-rater reliability assessment. Therefore, the reported outcomes should not be interpreted as standardized or directly comparable measures of usability or workflow performance.
Clinical Significance:
Understanding practical digital workflow limitations, particularly restricted prosthetic component libraries, may support clinicians in selecting implant planning software that aligns with their experience level, case complexity, and clinical setting, while emphasizing the need for careful verification of prosthetic feasibility during digital treatment planning.
