Accuracy of augmented reality-assisted versus template-guided implant surgery: an in-vitro comparative study

This in-vitro comparative study aimed to examine the accuracy of augmented reality-assisted implant placement compared to the conventional drilling templates. Twenty maxillary bone models were used to perform 80 implant placements using two different methods. Every bone model received four implants: two were placed using augmented reality (AR-I), and two using templates (TG-I). AR-I was performed using Microsoft Hololens 2, and TG-I using SMOP Software. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomograms were superimposed with the presurgical planning, measuring the deviation between the planned and placed implant. The primary outcome (angular deviation (degrees)) and secondary outcome (depth deviation (mm)) parameters were measured. Overall, 80 implant surgeries were included in the study. Regarding the primary outcome parameter, a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) between AR-I and TG-I was demonstrated. The mean values were 1.48° (±1.45) in the AR-I group and 2.65° (±1.29) in the TG-I group. The secondary outcome parameter showed no significant difference (P = 0.6) between the AR-I group with -0.07 mm (±0.59) and the TG-I group with -0.08 mm (±0.67). The results show a high precision for both methods. The AR technology showed even more accurate results, particularly regarding the primary outcome parameter.