Cargando…

Influence of experience on dental implant placement: an in vitro comparison of freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the performance of novice versus experienced practitioners for placing dental implant using freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches. METHODS: A total of 72 implants were placed in 36 simulation models. Three experienced and three novice prac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Xiaotong, Shaheen, Eman, Shujaat, Sohaib, Meeus, Jan, Legrand, Paul, Lahoud, Pierre, do Nascimento Gerhardt, Maurício, Politis, Constantinus, Jacobs, Reinhilde
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9548458/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36210395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00441-3
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the performance of novice versus experienced practitioners for placing dental implant using freehand, static guided and dynamic navigation approaches. METHODS: A total of 72 implants were placed in 36 simulation models. Three experienced and three novice practitioners were recruited for performing the osteotomy and implant insertion with freehand, surgical guide (pilot-drill guidance) and navigation (X-Guide, X-Nav technologies) approaches. Each practitioner inserted 4 implants per approach randomly with a 1-week gap to avoid memory bias (4 insertion sites × 3 approaches × 6 practitioners = 72 implants). The performance of practitioners was assessed by comparing actual implant deviation to the planned position, time required for implant placement and questionnaire-based self-confidence evaluation of practitioners on a scale of 1–30. RESULTS: The navigation approach significantly improved angular deviation compared with freehand (P < 0.001) and surgical guide (P < 0.001) irrespective of the experience. Surgical time with navigation was significantly longer compared to the freehand approach (P < 0.001), where experienced practitioners performed significantly faster compared to novice practitioners (P < 0.001). Overall, self-confidence was higher in favor of novice practitioners with both guided approaches. In addition, the confidence of novice practitioners (median score = 26) was comparable to that of experienced practitioners (median score = 27) for placing implants with the navigation approach. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic navigation system could act as a viable tool for dental implant placement. Unlike freehand and static-guided approaches, novice practitioners showed comparable accuracy and self-confidence to that of experienced practitioners with the navigation approach. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-022-00441-3.