Current Oral Health Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 140–146 | Cite as

Dental Implant Surgery: From Conventional to Guided to Navigated Approach

  • Brian KastenEmail author
  • Ali Arastu
  • Neeraj Panchal
Digital and Esthetic Dentistry (E Anadioti and P Stathopoulou, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Digital and Esthetic Dentistry


Purpose of Review

The purpose of this article is to review the evolution of dental implant surgery from a traditional approach to a computer-aided one. Implant surgery using CAD/CAM surgical templates has become widely used, and now, a new technology, dynamic navigation, is gaining popularity. We aim to review both technologies as well as their advantages and disadvantages.

Recent Findings

The latest reviews of the accuracy of static navigation show 1.4 mm apical horizontal, 1.1 mm coronal horizontal, 0.74 mm vertical, and 3.98° angular deviations. Dynamic navigation is reported to have 0.4 mm horizontal/vertical and 4° angular deviations. While deviations do exist with these techniques, the accuracy and predictability still greatly surpass that of free-hand surgery.


Dentistry has now moved into a digital era and so has implant surgery. Computer-aided implant planning and surgery has become common practice for many surgeons. Static and dynamic navigation has taken implant surgery to a new level of predictability and precision.


Dental implant Implant surgery CAD/CAM Computer-guided surgery Static navigation Dynamic navigation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Ring ME. Dentistry: an illustrated history 2nd ed: Abradale Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenfield EJ. Implantation of artificial crown and bridge abutments. Int J Oral Implant. 1991;7(2):63–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;16:1–132.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brånemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(3):399–410. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esposito M, et al. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2014;(7):CD003815.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Esposito M, et al. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD004151.
  8. 8.
    Chen Y, Kyung HM, Zhao WT, Yu WJ. Critical factors for the success of orthodontic mini-implants: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135(3):284–91. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Branemark PI, Zarb G. Tissue-integrated prostheses: Quintessence Books; 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Branemark PI and Worthington P: Advanced osseointegration surgery: applications in the maxillofacial region. Brånemark PI, Zarb, George A, Albrektsson T, editors. Quintessence Books; 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta S, et al. Oral implant imaging: a review. Malays J Med Science. 2015;22(3):7–17.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karjodkar FR. Textbook of dental and maxillofacial radiology. 2nd ed: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers ℗ ltd; 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guerrero ME, Noriega J, Castro C, Jacobs R. Does cone-beam CT alter treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative implant planning using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44(2):121–8. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bornstein M, Scarfe W, Vaughn V, Jacobs R. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Supplement):55–77. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deeb G, Antonos L, Tack S, Carrico C, Laskin D, Deeb JG. Is cone-beam computed tomography always necessary for dental implant placement? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(2):285–9. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramasamy GM, et al. Implant surgical guides: from the past to the present. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2013;5(Suppl 1):S98–S102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arfai NK, Kiat-amnuay S. Radiographic and surgical guide for placement of multiple implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97:310–2. Scholar
  18. 18.
    D'Souza KM, Aras MA. Types of implant surgical guides in dentistry: a review. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38(5):643–52. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JYK, Schutyser F, Boumans T. Accuracy of computer-guided surgery: a comparison of operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):407–13. Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Bover-Ramos F, et al. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; Not yet in print. This is the most current review of the accuracy of static navigation. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arısan V. Implant positioning errors in freehand and computer-aided placement methods: a single-blind clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(1):190–204. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cassetta M, Giansanti M, di Mambro A, Calasso S, Barbato E. Accuracy of two stereolithographic surgical templates: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(3):448–59. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pettersson A, Komiyama A, Hultin M, Näsström K, Klinge B. Accuracy of virtually planned and template guided implant surgery on edentate patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(4):527–37. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turbush SK, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(3):181–8. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raico Gallardo YN, da Silva-Olivio IRT, Mukai E, Morimoto S, Sesma N, Cordaro L. Accuracy comparison of guided surgery for dental implants according to the tissue of support: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(5):602–12. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kernen F, Benic GI, Payer M, Schär A, Müller-Gerbl M, Filippi A, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional printed templates for guided implant placement based on matching a surface scan with CBCT. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(4):762–8. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vermeulen J. The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(3):617–24. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laederach V, Mukaddam K, Payer M, Filippi A, Kühl S. Deviations of different systems for guided implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(9):1147–51. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cassetta M, Bellardini M. How much does experience in guided implant surgery play a role in accuracy? A randomized controlled pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(7):922–30. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ewers R, et al. Computer aided navigation in dental implantology: 7 years of clinical experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62:32–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Strong EB, Rafii A, Holhweg-Majert B, Fuller SC, Metzger MC. Comparison of 3 optical navigation systems for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134(10):1080–4. Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Block MS, Emery RW. Static or dynamic navigation for implant placement: choosing the method of guidance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:269–77. Describes workflow for static and dynamic navigation and indications for different navigation methods. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    •• Block MS, et al. Implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:92. Demonstrates that dynamic navigation can achieve accuracy of implant placement similar to static guides and is an improvement over freehand implant placement. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Emery RW, Merritt SA, Lank K, Gibbs JD. Accuracy of dynamic navigation for dental implant placement–model-based evaluation. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42(5):399–405. Scholar
  35. 35.
    D'haese J, et al. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery. Periodontol. 2000. 2017;73(1):121–33. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amsterdam Dental GroupPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Penn Dental MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryPenn Presbyterian Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryPhiladelphia Veteran’s Affairs Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of Oral Surgery/PharmacologyPenn Dental MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations