Accuracy of two static computer-assisted implant surgery systems in partially edentulous patients: A randomized clinical trial using intraoral scan data

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The purpose of this study was to compare implant deviations between two static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) systems in partially edentulous patients using intraoral scan data. Fully guided dental implant placements were planned using two implant systems, Straumann Bone Level Tapered (S-BLT) and CAMLOG SCREW LINE Promote plus (C-SL), with respective planning software (S-BLT: coDiagnostiX; C-SL: SMOP). Intraoperative scans were performed after implant placement and compared to virtual implant positions in Geomagic Control X (GCX) a software for three-dimensional (3D) quality control. Deviations were analyzed in a coordinate system (x-, y-, z-axis) and total deviations (entry point, apex, and angular deviations) were compared. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.0125.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients received 80 implants placed by 13 surgeons with varying experience in sCAIS.
Deviations from 75 datasets were evaluated.
Mean 3D deviation at the entry point was 0.64 ± 0.25 mm for S-BLT and 0.75 ± 0.33 mm for C-SL.
At the apex, the mean 3D deviation was 1.00 ± 0.40 mm for S-BLT and 1.26 ± 0.68 mm for C-SL.
The mean angular deviation was 3.22 ± 2.12° for S-BLT and 3.80 ± 2.81° for C-SL.
No significant differences were observed between systems, surgeon experience or implant location (all p > 0.0125).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the drill-body guided (C-SL) and drill-handle guided (S-BLT) systems provide comparable and predictable outcomes in fully guided implant placements. No system or planning software was found to be superior.

Adapted from MWH Böse et al., J Dent. 2025 May 11:159:105814, for more info about this publication, click HERE.

This review is part of the Straumann "Scientific Highlights Newsletter 3/25".