To compare the accuracy of implant placement using the conventional freehand method and a dynamic navigation system; to assess the role of the surgeon's experience in implant placement using these two methods. A randomized in-vitro study was conducted. Six resin mandible models and 36 implants were used. Two researchers with differing clinical experience (novice and experienced) placed implants using either the Navident dynamic navigation system (navigation group) or the conventional freehand method (freehand group). Accuracy was measured by overlaying the real position in the postoperative CBCT on the virtual presurgical placement of the implant in a CBCT image. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were performed. The navigation group showed significantly higher accuracy for all the variables studied except 3D entry and depth deviation. This system significantly enhanced the accuracy of the novice professional in several outcome variables in comparison with the freehand implant placement method. However, when the implants were placed by the experienced clinician the dynamic navigation system only improved angulation deviation. Significant differences were found between the 2 professionals when the freehand method was employed. Similar deviations were observed for the implants placed with the navigation system. Dynamic computer assisted surgery systems allow more accurate implant placement in comparison with the conventional freehand method, regardless of the surgeon's experience. However, this system seems to offer more advantages to novice professionals, since it allows them to reduce their deviations significantly and achieve similar results to those of experienced clinicians.

Objectives: To assess dental implant placement accuracy with a dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) system and a freehand approach. Secondarily, to compare the patients' perception and quality of life (QoL) with the two approaches.Methods: A double‐arm randomized clinical trial was conducted. Consecutive partially edentulous patients were randomly allocated to the dCAIS or standard freehand approach groups. Implant placement accuracy was evaluated by overlapping the preoperative and postoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomographs (CBCT) and recording linear deviations at the implant apex and platform (in mm) and angular deviations (in degrees). Questionnaires recorded self‐reported satisfaction, pain and QoL during surgery and postoperatively.Results: Thirty patients (22 implants) were enrolled in each group. One patient was lost to follow‐up. A significant difference (p < .001) in mean angular deviation was found between the dCAIS (4.02°; 95% CI: 2.85 to 5.19) and the FH (7.97°; 95% CI: 5.36 to 10.58) groups. Linear deviations were significantly lower in the dCAIS group, except for the apex vertical deviation, where no differences were found. Although dCAIS took 14 min longer (95% CI: 6.43 to 21.24; p < .001), patients in both groups considered the surgical time acceptable. Postoperative pain and analgesic consumption during the first postoperative week were similar between groups and self‐reported satisfaction was very high.Conclusion: dCAIS systems significantly increase the accuracy of implant placement in partially edentulous patients in comparison with the conventional freehand approach. However, they increase the surgical time significantly and do not seem to improve patient satisfaction or reduce postoperative pain.

The aim was to assess periodontal health maintenance and gingival recessions development in patients undergoing an orthodontic treatment with clear aligners (CA) and fixed appliances (FA). An electronic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed up to September 2022 to identify all potential articles. Two investigators independently selected the studies according to the inclusion criteria. Prospective and retrospective studies assessing the periodontal health status and gingival recession development during the orthodontic treatment with buccal FA and CA were included. Case series, cross-sectional studies, and studies with less than two months of follow-up were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted the data from included articles and assessed risk of bias across studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data were performed. Pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model were used to compare periodontal indices between FA and CA treatment in different follow-up periods. From the 129 potential studies, finally 12 studies were included. Only 8 could be included in the quantitative analysis. CA seems to slightly maintain better periodontal health indices. Only plaque index in a mid-term follow-up (mean difference (MD): -0.99; 95%; Confidence interval (CI) [-1.94 to -0.03]; P=.04; I2=99%), and pocket probing depth at a long-term follow-up (MD: -0.93mm; 95% CI [-1.16 to 0.7]; P<0.0001) reported statistically significant results favoring CA. Up to the date there is not enough evidence to conclude that CA maintains better periodontal health during an orthodontic treatment than FA.

To assess the accuracy and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of the computer-guided "double factor" technique for treating fully edentulous patients. A proof of concept prospective study was designed. Ten consecutive patients requiring full arch dental implant supported rehabilitation in a private practice were enrolled between October 2021 and March 2022. All patients were treated by means of an All-on-four®, and implants were planned and placed according to the "double factor" technique. This technique merges the static and dynamic computer-guided surgical approach in the same surgery. The primary outcome was the accuracy of implant placement, measured by overlapping post- and pre-operative cone-beam computerized tomography with the implant planning. Additionally, PROMs and patient quality of life after surgery were evaluated using different questionnaires. Descriptive and bivariate data analyses were performed. Statistical significance was considered for p < 0.05. A total of 48 implants were placed using the "double factor" technique, and 12 full-arch immediate loading prostheses were delivered. The mean angular deviation was 3.74° (standard deviation [SD]: 2). The total linear deviation at the apex and platform of the implant was 1.25 mm (SD: 0.55) and 1.42 mm (SD: 0.64), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between tilted and axial implants, the upper and lower jaw, or the right and left side. High self-reported satisfaction was registered, and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) score improved postoperatively (p = 0.002). The "double factor" technique is a valid and accurate treatment approach for fully edentulous patients. The double factor technique merges the advantages of both the dynamic and static computer assisted surgery approaches, affording accurate and predictable results when treating fully edentulous patients in a minimally invasive manner.

The rapid development of computer‐assisted implant surgery (CAIS) and the respective research and clinical applications have necessitated a standardization of the terminology related not only to different devices, but also the different steps involved, surgical and presurgical procedures. The present glossary was introduced at the 1st International Team for Implantology Symposium on Computer‐assisted Implant Surgery, based on the collective work of clinicians and researchers with deep understanding and experience in these technologies. The glossary was further refined and revised through the structured input of a large group of global experts within clinical application, research, and education of CAIS. The glossary includes 98 terms organized in 5 domains, aiming to clarify ambiguity and propose some standard nomenclature in the service of clinical practice, research but also development of new devices, protocols, and approaches.