PURPOSE:To assess the precision, patient satisfaction and efficiency achieved with three complete-arch implant impression techniques: intraoral scanning, dental photogrammetry and conventional plaster impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty participants with a completely edentulous maxilla or mandible rehabilitated with four to eight implants were included in the study. Each participant underwent six impressions: two using an intraoral scanner, two using a photogrammetry system and two using the conventional open-tray plaster technique. The precision of each impression method was assessed in terms of positioning and angular errors, specifically by the residual mean square and global deflection error. For each of these parameters, impression techniques were compared with a non-parametric Friedman test. Patient satisfaction was evaluated on a visual analogue scale across six domains, and the total time taken for the impression was recorded for each technique. RESULTS:Dental photogrammetry demonstrated the greatest overall precision, with the lowest root mean square error (0.030 ± 0.014 mm) compared to intraoral scanning (0.117 ± 0.068 mm) and plaster (0.110 ± 0.045 mm) (P 0.0001) and the lowest global deflection error (0.349 ± 0.499 degrees) compared to intraoral scanning (1.140 ± 0.556 degrees) and plaster (0.901 ± 0.643 degrees) (P 0.0001). Patient satisfaction was higher for the two digital techniques than for the conventional method. Intraoral scanning was the fastest technique, whereas plaster impressions and photogrammetry required more chair time. CONCLUSIONS:Photogrammetry offers superior precision and favourable patient acceptance for complete-arch implant impressions compared to intraoral scanning and conventional methods. Although intraoral scanning is the fastest method, its precision remains lower in edentulous patients. Photogrammetry could be a valuable alternative in digital workflows for complete-arch impressions. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT:The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
PURPOSE:Severe mandibular atrophy poses a significant challenge for dental implant placement due to insufficient bone volume. This study aimed to introduce and evaluate the efficacy of a buccal bone plate repositioning osteotomy technique for horizontal bone augmentation while preserving vertical bone height. METHODS:In this prospective case series, 10 patients with severe mandibular atrophy (alveolar crest width 5 mm) underwent buccal bone plate repositioning osteotomy. Autogenous bone blocks were harvested from the surgical site, rotated 180 degrees and rigidly fixed to the lingual cortical plate with titanium screws. Guided bone regeneration was performed using xenograft, collagen membrane and platelet-rich fibrin. Horizontal bone width (at the crest and 1 mm below) and vertical height were measured by CBCT preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and at 6 months. Data were analysed with paired t tests. RESULTS:All patients experienced uneventful healing. At 6 months, significant horizontal bone gain was achieved (crest 4.67 ± 1.27 mm; 1 mm below crest 4.41 ± 1.33 mm; both P 0.001). Vertical bone height remained stable (13.26 ± 2.78 mm vs 13.31 ± 2.65 mm). All 12 implants placed after healing were successful, with stable bone levels at the 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION:The buccal bone plate repositioning osteotomy technique provides predictable horizontal bone augmentation and maintains vertical height in cases of severe mandibular atrophy, eliminating the need for a secondary donor site. Rigid fixation to the lingual plate is crucial for success. Within the limitations of this case series, this approach appears to be a feasible solution for horizontal bone augmentation, with the advantage of avoiding a secondary donor site.
PURPOSE:The aim of this pilot preclinical study was to investigate the performance of a novel double-lead thread, conical bone-level ceramic implant manufactured by injection moulding (test group) in comparison to a well-established cylindrical, soft tissue-level ceramic implant with a single-lead thread manufactured by milling (control group), both sandblasted and acid-etched. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 16 implants (n = 8 per group) with a diameter of 3.75 mm (test) and 4.1 mm (control) and a length of 8 mm were placed in the mandibles of four female Göttingen minipigs 12 weeks after tooth extraction. The surface microscopy was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. Insertion torque values were measured during implant placement. Twelve weeks after implantation, histomorphometric analysis was performed to assess bone-implant contact and first bone-implant contact. An independent samples t test was used to compare the two groups. RESULTS:The surface of both ceramic implants showed similar roughness and hydrophilicity. No statistically significant difference was reported regarding the insertion torque, bone-implant contact and first bone-implant contact. The mean insertion torque was 64.38 ± 23.21 Ncm for the test group and 64.38 ± 25.42 Ncm for the control group (P = 1.000). The histomorphometric analysis showed mean bone-implant contact of 61.63% ± 13.26% and 70.68% ± 8.63% (P = 0.128) for the test and control group, respectively. The test group showed mean first bone-implant contact of -1.66 ± 0.56 mm for the test group and -1.27 ± 0.89 mm for the control group (P = 0.316). CONCLUSION:The novel double-lead thread, conical ceramic bone-level implant manufactured by injection moulding showed comparable primary stability and osseointegration to the established single-lead thread, cylindrical ceramic implant.
PURPOSE:This study introduces a fully digital technique for measuring the accuracy of guided implant surgery without requiring postoperative CBCT scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The method relies solely on preoperative and postoperative intraoral surface scans and uses standard computer-aided design software to extract and compare the planned and actual implant positions. By aligning scans and analysing implant coordinates through custom-built software, the technique allows for precise calculation of both linear and angular deviations. CONCLUSIONS:This approach eliminates additional radiation exposure, is non-invasive and is applicable to static, dynamic and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery workflows, offering a reproducible and clinically feasible alternative for in vivo accuracy validation.
PURPOSE:This in vitro pilot study aimed to determine the impact of two different CBCT fields of view, intraoral scan areas and surgical template sizes on the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 20 implant sites in the anterior maxilla of 20 polyurethane models of partially edentulous arches were divided into four groups based on CBCT field of view and intraoral scan area. The groups used either a small (40 × 40 mm) or medium field of view (50 × 100 mm), a full-maxilla or partial intraoral scan area and a full or partial surgical guide. CBCT and intraoral scan data were registered for implant planning, and surgical templates (either supported by all the remaining teeth or only by teeth 11 and 23) were designed accordingly. The implants were randomly placed through the template in a fully guided manner. Postoperative surface scans were superimposed on the preoperative planning data to evaluate the angular and spatial deviation between the planned and inserted implants. Descriptive statistics were followed by a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the differences between the groups. RESULTS:No significant differences were found when comparing the effect of the size of field of view, intraoral scan area and surgical template on the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Preliminary findings indicate that field of view size, intraoral scan area and surgical template dimensions do not significantly affect the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery in the partially edentulous anterior maxilla, supporting the application of As Low As Diagnostically Acceptable being Indication-oriented and Patient-specific principles. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT:The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
PURPOSE:A recently introduced narrow osseointegrated wedge-shaped implant has been proposed for the treatment of thin alveolar ridges that are not suitable for placement of root form screw-type implants without bone augmentation procedures. The wedge implant was designed with the aim of preserving the buccal bone plate while maintaining adequate mechanical and prosthetic performance. This multiple split-mouth case report in the posterior maxilla compares wedge-shaped and screw-type implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Wedge implants (1.8 mm thickness) were placed in a narrow ridge (mean width 4.05 mm), whereas screw implants (4.25 mm diameter) were placed in a wider ridge (mean width 6.5 mm). Screw implant sites were prepared with standard drills. Wedge implant sites were prepared using the piezoelectric technique and wedge ridge expanders. Implant stability, marginal bone level, ridge width changes and peri-implant soft tissue conditions were evaluated over a 14-month follow-up period. RESULTS:All implants achieved osseointegration. Screw implants demonstrated marginal bone loss between 1.2 and 2 mm and gingival recession. Conversely, wedge implants, despite being placed in thinner ridges, did not exhibit marginal bone loss and showed healthy and stable peri-implant soft tissues and horizontal thickening of the bone crest. CONCLUSIONS:Within the limitations of a case report, wedge-shaped implants may represent a minimally invasive alternative to conventional screw implants and bone augmentation in narrow ridges, promoting bone preservation and favourable aesthetic outcomes.
When a tooth is lost, resorption of the surrounding hard and soft tissue occurs. If the tooth is not replaced, the bone in the area gradually deteriorates owing to the lack of functional stimulation. Replacing a tooth shortly after its loss with a fixed implant-supported restoration can help mitigate these consequences. This is particularly crucial for a first molar, which, being a primary load-bearing point, plays an essential role in the proper development of the permanent dentition and in masticatory function. Various approaches exist for implant-supported replacement of a first molar, but each has limitations in terms of cleansability, treatment cost and biomechanical performance. This case report explores a newer, clinically proven approach involving a two-piece large-diameter tissue-level implant that features an individualised neck and platform contour instead of the typical circular shape, ideally corresponding to the dimensions of the molar edentulous space. The report involves a 63-year-old man who underwent this treatment 5 years after extraction of the mandibular left first molar, and details the treatment planning, surgical procedure and prosthetic restoration. The treatment outcomes, observed over a 36-month follow-up period, were a stable marginal bone level, healthy and stable soft tissue and satisfactory aesthetics. This demonstrates that this implant can be considered the method of choice for first molar replacement.
PURPOSE:To radiographically assess buccal crest thickness and buccal crest height for 3 years following flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalisation while maintaining a minimum implant-buccal crest distance of 2 mm, the so-called buccal gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In this prospective multicentre CBCT study, patients with a single failing maxillary incisor were enrolled. Across six centres, 100 consecutive patients underwent flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalisation. The buccal gap was grafted with a bovine-derived bone substitute. CBCT scans were obtained preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and after 1 and 3 years. RESULTS:Complete CBCT datasets were available for 71 patients. Mean buccal crest thickness increased from 0.56 mm preoperatively to 3.30 mm postoperatively, before decreasing to 2.47 mm at 1 year and 2.29 mm at 3 years. Similarly, the mean buccal crest height increased from 0.91 mm preoperatively to 3.12 mm postoperatively, then decreased to 1.86 mm at 1 year and 1.54 mm at 3 years. Multivariable regression analysis revealed a positive correlation between pink aesthetic scores and buccal crest thickness/height at 3 years. Additionally, implant site location emerged as the strongest predictor of outcomes for buccal crest thickness and height, with central incisor sites demonstrating significantly greater buccal crest thickness/height at 3 years compared to lateral incisor sites (effect 1.43 mm, P 0.001). CONCLUSION:The flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalisation approach provides long-term stability for the buccal crest, supporting peri-implant soft tissues and yielding high aesthetic outcomes, with a mean pink aesthetic score of 12.1 after 3 years. Palatal implant positioning appears to be a key determinant of successful outcomes with this approach.
PURPOSE:To establish an expert consensus on the definition, diagnostic boundaries and clinical interpretation of initial bone remodelling around dental implants and identify evidence-based strategies for its prevention and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A three-round Delphi consensus process was conducted using an established methodology. Twenty-five internationally recognised experts in implant dentistry, identified through a structured literature search, participated anonymously. Fifteen statements were developed by a coordinating group to address the definition, clinical implications and aetiopathogenesis of initial bone remodelling. Agreement was rated on a 9-point Likert scale, with consensus defined as a mean score ≥ 7 and ≤ 1 outlier. RESULTS:All 25 experts completed each round. Of the 15 statements evaluated, 10 reached full consensus, one achieved near consensus and four did not reach the predefined threshold. No consensus was achieved regarding the definition, temporal reference or prognostic significance of initial bone remodelling, highlighting the persistent heterogeneity in terminology and diagnostic interpretation. In contrast, strong agreement was achieved on the biological and mechanical determinants of initial bone remodelling, including implant-abutment configuration, platform switching, peri-implant bone volume, insertion torque, soft tissue thickness and phenotype, abutment height, prosthetic emergence profile and the presence of undetected residual cement. CONCLUSIONS:Initial bone remodelling remains variably defined but is increasingly recognised as a controllable rather than an inevitable process. A shared conceptual and diagnostic framework is needed to standardise clinical interpretation, guide preventive strategies and support more rigorous future research on peri-implant bone stability.
PURPOSE:To investigate the effectiveness of keratinised mucosa width enhancement between an apically positioned flap with free gingival graft and the novel technique with a palatal/lingual pedicle flap by comparing the amount of keratinised mucosa width acquired and clinical outcomes related to peri-implant health. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients requiring keratinised mucosa width enhancement (less than 2 mm) during uncovering surgery were included. Two surgical methods were compared: an apically positioned flap with free gingival graft (FGG group) and a palatal/lingual pedicle flap with collagen matrix (PPF group). The primary outcomes were amount of keratinised mucosa width and shrinkage rate at 2 weeks, 2 months after surgery, and 3 and 6 months after loading. Secondary outcomes included the intra- and intergroup comparison in mucosal recession, probing pocket depth, marginal bone level and restoration design. RESULTS:A total of 30 patients (FGG 15, PPF 15) with 39 implants were enrolled. Both surgical approaches enhanced keratinised mucosa width considerably, with the FGG group achieving significantly greater keratinised mucosa width at 2 weeks, and 3 months and 6 months after loading (P 0.05); however, there was no significant intergroup difference in the change in keratinised mucosa width over time. The shrinkage rate of acquired keratinised mucosa width was less than 30% from 2 weeks to 2 months, and this trend stabilised after loading. Both groups demonstrated favourable clinical outcomes. Although the PPF group exhibited more buccal mucosal recession with a convex restoration profile, the FGG group showed more buccal creeping effects and lingual mucosal recession over the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS:Both the free gingival graft and palatal/lingual pedicle flap techniques can effectively enhance keratinised mucosa width, maintaining an adequate amount of more than 2 mm after loading. Furthermore, comparable clinical outcomes between the methods indicate favourable peri-implant health regardless of the surgical technique, abutment type and restoration design.
PURPOSE:Aspergillosis is a common cause of fungal maxillary sinusitis that is often asymptomatic and detected only incidentally on imaging. It may be triggered by spores entering the maxillary sinus through the natural ostium, often following the dislocation of foreign bodies, for example root canal filling or augmentation materials. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate a standardised treatment for maxillary sinus aspergillosis followed by implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Eleven immunocompetent patients with maxillary sinus aspergillosis were included in the present study. Maxillary sinus surgery was performed via a bone lid under local anaesthesia and intravenous sedation. The aspergilloma was removed completely and the diagnosis was confirmed by histopathology. Sinus disinfection consisted of irrigation with hydrogen peroxide (3%) and saline solution, followed by photodynamic decontamination. Three months postoperatively, a new CBCT scan was taken to confirm the absence of any pathology in the sinus. Sinus floor elevation and bone augmentation were then performed following a clear protocol. Implants were placed, whenever possible, simultaneously or after 3 months and exposed after another 3 months. The definitive prosthetic restoration followed 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS:The surgical procedures went without complications, and all patients were successfully restored. After 3 to 10 years (mean 6.8 ± 1.7 years), all inserted implants were still in place and presented with no inflammation, and with pocket depths below 5 mm (3.1 ± 0.9 mm). Postoperative radiographs showed no recurrence of any sinus pathology. CONCLUSION:The present treatment protocol proved to be efficient in managing infection and defect reconstruction. Throughout the 3- to 10-year follow-up period, neither recurrences nor complications presented, affirming the reliability of the protocol.
PURPOSE:To evaluate the accuracy of guided implant placement using surgical guides with or without metallic sleeves through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science up to 2025, identifying in vivo and in vitro studies comparing static surgical guides with and without metallic sleeves. Studies reporting angular, horizontal or vertical deviations between planned and actual implant positions were included. Data were extracted and analysed using standardised mean differences, with heterogeneity assessed via the I² index and Cochran Q test. RESULTS:Four studies met the inclusion criteria: three in vitro and one in vivo randomised clinical trial, totalling 90 implants. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between sleeveless and sleeved guides in terms of angular deviation (standardised mean difference 0.18; 95% confidence interval -0.24 to 0.59; P = 0.402) or horizontal deviation (standardised mean difference -0.23; 95% confidence interval -0.70 to 0.24; P = 0.340). All studies demonstrated low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). CONCLUSIONS:Clinical evidence comparing sleeveless and sleeved surgical guides remains very limited. Current data, mainly derived from in vitro studies and one small randomised clinical trial, suggest that both guide types may offer comparable accuracy; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and further high-quality clinical studies are required to validate these preliminary results and establish their applicability in different clinical scenarios.
PURPOSE:To evaluate and compare the accuracy of implant placement measured by using CBCT or intraoral scanning in computer-assisted implant surgery in terms of angular, coronal, apical and depth deviations between planned and actual implant position. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD420250648755). The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design and study type question addressed the accuracy of implant placement surface scanning versus CBCT in in vitro and in vivo studies on computer-assisted implant surgery. The literature was searched using the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases up to 2025. Studies reporting quantitative data on angular, coronal, apical and signed depth deviations were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies, Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using standardised mean differences, heterogeneity was assessed with I2 and forest plots were generated. RESULTS:Eight studies were included. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in angular deviation (standardised mean difference 0.76 degrees, P = 0.2315) or apical deviation (standardised mean difference 0 mm, P = 0.9820) between CBCT and intraoral scanning. Intraoral scanning demonstrated lower coronal deviation (standardised mean difference -0.21 mm, P = 0.0435) and a trend towards reduced depth deviation (standardised mean difference -0.40 mm, P = 0.0620). Intraoral scanning also exhibited lower variability across studies. Risk of bias was low in in vitro studies and moderate to high in most in vivo studies. CONCLUSION:Most existing studies rely on pre- and postoperative CBCT imaging, whereas intraoral scanning-based methods remain underexplored. Preliminary evidence suggests that intraoral scanning-based analyses may offer higher accuracy than CBCT, although the differences are not statistically significant. When deciding between intraoral scanning and CBCT, clinicians should consider clinical practicality, including equipment availability and radiation exposure.
PURPOSE:The present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effect of a special treatment procedure that avoids the repeated change of implant abutments (one-abutment one-time concept, study group) on implant survival and peri-implant bone level stability compared to the standard procedure (control group). MATERIALS AND METHODS:The National Center for Biotechnology Information database (PubMed) was searched systematically using preselected search terms. Randomised clinical control trials were extracted that were conducted no more than 10 years previously at the time (2012 to 2022), comparing two treatment approaches (study group vs control group) in single-tooth implant replacement over a minimum observation period of 12 months. A meta-analysis was then performed to compare the implant survival rate and marginal bone loss between the study and control groups. RESULTS:Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the subsequent meta-analysis, in which a total of 753 implants were placed in 573 patients. On average, 55.8 patients were included per study and 75.3 implants were placed. The cumulative survival rate of the implants was 99.34%. When comparing the subgroups, the survival rate in the study group was 99.43%, whereas in the control group with multiple changes it was 99.25%. The difference was only marginally statistically significant and there was slightly less bone resorption in the study group compared to the control group (P = 0.0518). CONCLUSION:The one-abutment one-time concept leads to less bone resorption on implants; however, due to the marginal statistical significance and the low influence on implant survival, further studies involving a larger number of patients need to be carried out to evaluate the clinical relevance.
BACKGROUND:Certain 3D interrelationships between adjacent implants can potentially predispose to prosthetic and biological complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patient records with adjacent dental implants were assessed to evaluate the effects of vertical, horizontal and angulation interrelationships between splinted compared to non-splinted implant restorations on the occurrence of biological and prosthetic complications. Data on patient- and implant-related variables were collected at baseline (T1) during prosthesis placement and at the last follow-up appointment (T2). RESULTS:The study included 227 patients with 508 implants and a mean follow-up period of 6.7 ± 6.5 years. No significant difference in implant survival was observed between the groups (97.3% for splinted adjacent implant restorations and 98.4% for non-splinted adjacent implant restorations). Implant success, defined as the absence of any biological or prosthetic complications, was relatively low (56.8% for non-splinted adjacent implant restorations and 62.1% for splinted adjacent implant restorations), with no significant inter-group differences (odds ratio 0.80; P = 0.415). Patients with splinted adjacent implant restorations demonstrated a significantly higher likelihood of biological complications than those with non-splinted adjacent implant restorations (24.1% vs 12.6%, respectively; odds ratio 2.21; P = 0.028) but a notably lower risk of prosthetic complications (19% vs 33.3%, respectively; odds ratio 0.47; P = 0.015). Survival and success rates were consistent across both groups at both patient and implant levels. Generally, certain 3D interrelationships were linked to biological complications in the splinted adjacent implant restoration group and prosthetic complications in the non-splinted adjacent implant restoration group. With regard to marginal bone loss according to implant location, the middle implant was found to have increased marginal bone loss compared to its mesial or distal counterpart (P = 0.013)Conclusion: Certain 3D relationships were found to exacerbate prosthetic complications in non-splinted adjacent implant restorations and biological complications in splinted adjacent implant restorations. Implants with either type of restoration exhibited comparable survival and success rates. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT:The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
Background: Dental rehabilitation is considered challenging to achieve whenever composite scapulo-dorsal free flaps are used to reconstruct medium-to-large maxillary defects due to the fact that bone quality and quantity may be low, which may preclude placement of conventional dental implants. In such cases, current options for dental rehabilitation include printed patient-specific subperiosteal implants or zygomatic implants. Methods: The authors report three cases of maxillary tumour resections that led to medium-to-large defects reconstructed using composite scapulo-dorsal free flaps. Secondary zygomatic implants were perforated through the composite scapulo-dorsal flap more than 12 months after primary reconstruction. Initial loading with removable dental prostheses took place at the time of zygomatic implant placement, followed by secondary non-removable prosthesis placement. Results: Adequate dental rehabilitation was achieved in all three cases, with an implant survival rate of 100% and no apparent complications after a follow-up period of more than 24 months. Conclusion: The technique described in the present paper shows promising results in achieving adequate dental rehabilitation in cases with composite scapulo-dorsal free flaps for reconstruction of medium-to-large maxillary defects and could be used as part of the dental rehabilitation strategy, especially in cases where dental prostheses have failed or removable prostheses cannot be used. Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
PURPOSE:To compare the accuracy of static guided surgery using a pilot drill guide and dynamic guided surgery for dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Partially edentulous adult patients requiring implant placement were randomly assigned to either the static guided surgery group using a pilot drill guide or the dynamic guided surgery group. Digital implant planning was conducted using intraoral scans and CBCT with planning software to determine the optimal prosthetic position. Postoperative CBCT scans were taken to compare with the plan and assess platform, apex, vertical and angular deviations from the planned implant positions. RESULTS:A total of 25 implants were placed. Mean deviations at the implant platform were 1.17 ± 0.75 mm for the static guided surgery group and 1.17 ± 0.71 mm for the dynamic guided surgery group, with no significant differences (P = 0.983). Apical deviations were 2.39 ± 1.22 mm for the static guided surgery group and 1.75 ± 0.59 mm for the dynamic guided surgery group, with no significant differences (P = 0.112). Vertical deviations were 0.79 ± 0.50 mm for the static guided surgery group and 0.61 ± 0.51 mm for the dynamic guided surgery group (P = 0.403). Significant differences were found in angular deviations, with the static guided surgery group showing 10.9 ± 5.63 degrees and the dynamic guided surgery group showing 4.72 ± 2.63 degrees (P = 0.002). Independent variables such as sex, age, implant location, arch and implant size did not significantly influence accuracy. CONCLUSION:Both static and dynamic guided surgery offer comparable precision in implant placement, with dynamic guided surgery providing superior angular accuracy. Further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to validate these findings. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT:The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
