The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to analyze the accuracy of implant placement using computer-assisted dynamic navigation procedures. An electronic literature search was carried out, supplemented by a manual search. The literature search was completed in June 2020. The results of in vitro and clinical studies were recorded separately from each other. For inclusion in the review, the studies had to examine at least the prosthetically relevant parameters for angle deviation, as well as global deviation or lateral deviation at the platform of the implant. Sixteen of 320 articles were included in the investigation: nine in vitro and seven clinical studies. The meta-analysis showed values of 4.1° for the clinical studies (95% CI, 3.12–5.10) and 3.7° for the in vitro studies (95% CI, 2.31–5.10) in terms of the angle deviation. The global deviation at the implant apex of the implant was 1.00 mm for the clinical studies (95% CI, 0.83–1.16) and 0.91 mm for the in vitro studies (95% CI, 0.60–1.12). These values indicate no significant difference between the clinical and in vitro studies. The results of this systematic review show a clinical accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted navigation that is comparable to that of static navigation. However, the dynamic navigation systems show a great heterogeneity that must be taken into account. Moreover, currently there are few clinical data available. Therefore, further investigations into the practicability of dynamic navigation seem necessary.

(1) Background: The objective of implant prosthetic restoration is to ensure the best possible rehabilitation of function and esthetics. Optimal positioning of the implant with regard to the bone availability, surrounding soft tissue, and prosthetic sustainability should be strived for during implant placement. The factors influencing freehand implant placement and the accuracy achieved with this procedure are investigated in this prospective clinical study. (2) Methods: Implants were placed in the single-tooth edentulous sites of the premolar and molar areas in 52 patients. Three-dimensional (3D)-planning was performed virtually prior to the freehand implant operation, and the desired position of the implant was provided to the surgeon. (3) Results: The deviations between the planned and the actually achieved position with freehand implant placement showed the following mean values and standard deviations: angle 8.7 ± 4.8°, 3D deviation at the implant shoulder 1.62 ± 0.87 mm, mesiodistal deviation 0.87 ± 0.75 mm, buccolingual deviation 0.70 ± 0.66 mm, and apiocoronal deviation 0.95 ± 0.61 mm. The type of jaw had a significant influence on accuracy. Major deviations were observed in the lower jaw. Furthermore, the timing of implant placement influenced the mesiodistal deviation and angular deviation; (4) Conclusions: Freehand implant placement demonstrated a higher level of deviation between the planned and actually achieved implant positions. In particular, the ranges showed a large spread. From a prosthetic point of view, there may be complications during the restoration of the prosthetic crown if the implant exit point is not optimally located or if the implants show a high angular deviation.

Background: This prospective clinical study aimed to investigate a possible deviation between the digitally planned implant position and the position achieved using dynamic navigation. The aim of the study was to establish clinical effectiveness and precision of implantation using dynamic navigation. Methods: Twenty consecutive patients received an implant (iSy-Implantat, Camlog, Wimsheim, Germany). One screw implant was placed in one jaw with remaining dentition of at least six teeth. The workflow was fully digital. Digital implant planning was conducted using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and an intraoral scan of the actual condition. Twenty implants were subsequently placed using a dynamic computer-assisted procedure. The clinical situation of the implant position was recorded using an intraoral scan. Using these data, models were produced via 3D printing, and CBCTs of these models were made using laboratory analogs. Deviations of the achieved implant position from the planned position were determined using evaluation software. Results: The evaluation of 20 implants resulted in a mean angle deviation of 2.7° (95% CI 2.2–3.3°). The 3D deviation at the implant shoulder was 1.83 mm (95% CI 1.34–2.33 mm). No significant differences were found for any of the parameters between the implantation in the upper or lower jaw and an open or flapless procedure (p-value < 0.05). Conclusion: The clinical trial showed that sufficiently precise implantation was possible with the dynamic navigation system used here. Dynamic navigation can improve the quality of implant positioning. In particular, the procedure allows safe positioning of the implants in minimally invasive procedures, which usually cannot be performed freehand in this form. A clinical benefit and effectiveness can be determined from the results.