Objectives: To assess the accuracy of a real‐time dynamic navigation system applied in zygomatic implant (ZI) surgery and summarize device‐related negative events and their management.Material and methods: Patients who presented with severely maxillary atrophy or maxillary defects and received dynamic navigation‐supported ZI surgery were included. The deviations of entry, exit, and angle were measured after image data fusion. A linear mixed‐effects model was used. Statistical significance was defined as p < .05. Device‐related negative events and their management were also recorded and analyzed.Results: Two hundred and thirty‐one zygomatic implants (ZIs) with navigation‐guided placement were planned in 74 consecutive patients between Jan 2015 and Aug 2020. Among them, 71 patients with 221 ZIs received navigation‐guided surgery finally. The deviations in entry, exit, and angle were 1.57 ± 0.71 mm, 2.1 ± 0.94 mm and 2.68 ± 1.25 degrees, respectively. Significant differences were found in entry and exit deviation according to the number of ZIs in the zygomata (p = .03 and .00, respectively). Patients with atrophic maxillary or maxillary defects showed a significant difference in exit deviation (p = .01). A total of 28 device‐related negative events occurred, and one resulted in 2 ZI failures due to implant malposition. The overall survival rate of ZIs was 98.64%, and the mean follow‐up time was 24.11 months (Standard Deviation [SD]: 12.62).Conclusions: The navigation‐supported ZI implantation is an accurate and reliable surgical approach. However, relevant technical negative events in the navigation process are worthy of attention.

Purpose: The present systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of zygomatic implant (ZI) placement using dynamic computer-aided surgery (d-CAIS), static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), and a free-hand approach in patients with severe atrophic edentulous maxilla and/or deficient maxilla. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches until May 2023 were performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Clinical trials and cadaver studies were selected. The primary outcome was planned/placed deviation. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the survival of ZI and surgical complications. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and meta-regression was utilized to compare fiducial registration amounts for d-CAIS and the different designs of s-CAIS. Results: A total of 14 studies with 511 ZIs were included (Nobel Biocare: 274, Southern Implant: 42, SIN Implant: 16, non-mentioned: 179). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the d-CAIS group were 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.34–2.29) at the entry point and 2.95 mm (95% CI: 1.66–4.24) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 3.49 degrees (95% CI: 2.04–4.93). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the s-CAIS group were 1.19 mm (95% CI: 0.83–1.54) at the entry point and 1.80 mm (95% CI: 1.10–2.50) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 2.15 degrees (95% CI: 1.43–2.88). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the free-hand group were 2.04 mm (95% CI: 1.69–2.39) at the entry point and 3.23 mm (95% CI: 2.34–4.12) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 4.92 degrees (95% CI: 3.86–5.98). There was strong evidence of differences in the average entry, apex, and angular deviation between the navigation, surgical guide, and free-hand groups (p < 0.01). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the number of fiducial screws and the planned/placed deviation regarding entry, apex, and angular measurements. Conclusion: Using d-CAIS and modified s-CAIS for ZI surgery has shown clinically acceptable outcomes regarding average entry, apex, and angular deviations. The maximal deviation values were predominantly observed in the conventional s-CAIS. Surgeons should be mindful of potential deviations and complications regardless of the decision making in different guide approaches.