The Impact of Surgical Guides on the Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33295/1992-576X-2026-3-CGIM-1Keywords:
dental implants, guided implant surgery, digital treatment planning, cone-beam computed tomography, surgical guides, implant placement accuracy, computer-assisted implantologyAbstract
Objective. This review aimed to examine the impact of digital treatment planning and various surgical guide systems on the accuracy of dental implant placement by comparing planned and postoperative implant coordinates. An additional objective was to analyze clinical, anatomical, and technical variables influencing the precision of guided implant surgery.
Materials and Methods. A narrative review of contemporary peer-reviewed publications was performed to evaluate current approaches to digital implant planning and computer-guided implant surgery. Particular attention was given to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based virtual planning, the characteristics of tooth-, mucosa-, and bone-supported surgical guides, stereolithographic manufacturing technologies, planning software, and various factors that may affect the accuracy of implant placement.
Results. The available evidence indicates that digitally guided implant placement generally provides greater positional accuracy than conventional freehand surgery, resulting in significantly lower linear and angular deviations from the virtual treatment plan. The precision of implant positioning is enhanced when prosthetically driven planning is combined with accurate three-dimensional imaging and an appropriate guide-support design. Nevertheless, the final outcome remains influenced by numerous variables, including bone density and morphology, soft tissue thickness, implant dimensions, guide stability, the surgical protocol, manufacturing accuracy, and the clinician’s experience level.
Conclusion. The integration of digital planning with guided implant surgery contributes to more accurate, predictable, and safe implant placement while facilitating prosthetically driven treatment. Despite these advantages, clinicians should recognize the cumulative effect of technical inaccuracies and patient-related anatomical factors that may compromise surgical precision. Future prospective clinical studies using standardized assessment methods are required to compare different guide-support concepts and to further define the contribution of individual variables to implant placement accuracy.
Downloads
References
Tahmaseb, A., Wu, V., Wismeijer, D., Coucke, W., Evans, C. (2018). The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Impl Res, 29(16), 416–435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13346
D’haese, J., Van De Velde, T., Komiyama, A., Hultin, M., & De Bruyn, H. (2012). Accuracy and complications using computer-designed stereolithographic surgical guides for oral rehabilitation by means of dental implants: a review of the literature. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 14(3), 321–335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00275.x
Schnutenhaus, S., Edelmann, C., Knipper, A., & Luthardt, R. G. (2021). Accuracy of Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and In Vitro Studies. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(4), 704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040704
Cassetta, M., Di Mambro, A., Giansanti, M., Stefanelli, L. V., & Barbato, E. (2013). Is it possible to improve the accuracy of implants inserted with a stereolithographic surgical guide by reducing the tolerance between mechanical components? International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 42(7), 887–890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.01.011
Van Assche, N., van Steenberghe, D., Guerrero, M. E., Hirsch, E., Schutyser, F., Quirynen, M., & Jacobs, R. (2007). Accuracy of implant placement based on pre-surgical planning of three-dimensional cone-beam images: a pilot study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 34(9), 816–821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01110.x
Ersoy, A. E., Turkyilmaz, I., Ozan, O. & McGlumphy, E. A. (2008). Reliability of Implant Placement with Stereolithographic Surgical Guides Generated from Computed Tomography: Clinical Data From 94 Implants. Journal of Periodontology, 79, 1339–1345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080059
Elif Tuba Akçin, M. Barış Güncü, Güliz Aktaş, Yavuz Aslan. (2018). Effect of manufacturing techniques on the marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium implant-supported multiunit frameworks. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 120(5), 709–715. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.012
Katsoulis, J., Pazera, P., Mericske-Stern, R. (2009). Prosthetically driven, computer-guided implant planning for the edentulous maxilla: a model study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 11(3), 238–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00110.x
Putra, R. H., Yoda, N., Astuti, E. R., & Sasaki, K. (2022). The accuracy of implant placement with mucosa-supported stereolithographic surgical guides in the edentulous mandible: an in vitro study. Journal of Prosthodontic Research, 66(1), 71–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2149223
T. Hasegawa, S. Ri, T. Shigeta, M. Akashi, Y. Imai, Y. Kakei, Y. Shibuya, T. Komori. (2013). Risk factors associated with inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of the mandibular third molar—a comparative study of preoperative images by panoramic radiography and computed tomography. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 42(8), 843–851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.01.023
Ali, N., Tolba, E. M., & Amer, M. (2023). Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery in the Partially Edentulous Jaw Using Digital impression versus Desktop Scanner and CBCT cast scan: Randomized Clinical Trial. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 11(D), 20–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2023.11379
Vasak, C., Watzak, G., Gahleitner, A., Strbac, G. D., Schemper, M., Zechner, W. (2011). Computed tomography-based evaluation of template (NobelGuide™)-guided implant positions: a prospective radiological study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 22(10), 1157–1163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02070.x
Ozan, O., Orhan, K., & Turkyilmaz, I. (2011). Correlation between bone density and angular deviation of implants placed using CT-generated surgical guides. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 22(5), 1755–1761. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31822e6305
Vercruyssen, M., Cox, C., Coucke, W., Naert, I., Jacobs, R., & Quirynen, M. (2014). A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 41(7), 717–723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12231
Kühl, S., Zürcher, S., Mahid, T., Müller-Gerbl, M., Filippi, A., & Cattin, P. (2013). Accuracy of full guided vs. half-guided implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res, 24(7), 763–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02484.x
Marquez Bautista, N., Meniz-García, C., López-Carriches, C., Sánchez-Labrador, L., Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann, J., & Madrigal Martínez-Pereda, C. (2024). Accuracy of Different Systems of Guided Implant Surgery and Methods for Quantification: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 14(24), 11479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411479
Collaert, B., Wijnen, L. & De Bruyn, H. (2011), A 2-year prospective study on immediate loading with fluoride-modified implants in the edentulous mandible. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 22, 1111–1116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02077.x
Gerlig Widmann, Reto Josef Bale. (2006). Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery — a review of surgical templates. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 21(2), 305–313. PMID: 16634503
Van Assche, N., Vercruyssen, M., Coucke, W., Teughels, W., Jacobs, R., Quirynen, M. (2012). Accuracy of computer-aided implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res, 23(6), 112–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02552.x
Verdonck, H. W. D., Meijer, G. J., Kessler, P., Nieman, F. H., De Baat, C. & Stoelinga, P. J. W. (2009), Assessment of bone vascularity in the anterior mandible using laser Doppler flowmetry. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 20, 140–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01631.x
Ozan, O., Turkyilmaz, I., Ersoy, A. E., McGlumphy, E. A., Rosenstiel, S. F. (2009). Clinical accuracy of 3 different types of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in implant placement. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 67(2), 394–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.09.033
Revilla-León, M., & Özcan, M. (2019). Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont, 28(2), 146–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12801
Belén Morón-Conejo, Santiago Berrendero, Maria Paz Salido, Cristina Zarauz, Guillermo Pradíes. (2024). Accuracy of surgical guides manufactured with four different 3D printers. A comparative in vitro study. J Dent, 148, 105226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105226
Wanschitz, F., Birkfellner, W., Watzinger, F., et al. (2002). Evaluation of accuracy of computer-aided intraoperative positioning of endosseous oral implants in the edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res, 13(1), 59–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130107.x
Ali Alkhayer, József Piffkó, Carsten Lippold & Emil Segatto. (2020). Accuracy of virtual planning in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Head Face Med, 16(1), 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00250-2
Nickenig, H. J., Wichmann, M., Hamel, J., Schlegel, K. A., & Eitner, S. (2010). Evaluation of the difference in accuracy between implant placement by virtual planning data and surgical guide templates versus the conventional free-hand method — influence of surgeon experience. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 38(7), 488–493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2009.10.023
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 VYDAVNYCHYY BUDYNOK EXPERT LLC
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
