Effect of Reset Times of Registration U-tube on Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation Implantation

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2026.03.005

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the effect of reset times of the registration U-tube on the accuracy of dynamic navigation implantation. Methods: In this study, the reset times of the U-tube was divided into One-time reset and Two-time reset. The implants were placed under the guidance of dynamic navigation, among the 72 implants, 27 were in the One-time reset group and 45 were in the Two-time reset group. The differences between the planned implant position and actual implant position in terms of three indicators, i.e. the entry deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation, were compared. Results: The entry deviation, apex deviation, and angular deviation of One-time reset group and Two-time reset group were (0.94±0.41) mm and (1.10±0.41) mm, (0.93±0.38) mm and (1.15±0.37) mm, and (1.19±0.97)° and (2.32±0.78)°. No significant difference was found on the entry deviation and angular deviation between One-time reset group and Two-time reset group (P>0.05), however, statistically significant difference in the apex deviation (P<0.05), with the Two-time reset group showed a larger deviation than One-time reset group. Conclusion: The accuracy of the U-tube reset will affect the implantation accuracy of the dynamic navigation. In clinical practice, the deviation caused by reset times of the registration U-tube should be considered. The U-tube should be worn before surgery to scan cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and then removed after the registration. The One-time reset not only optimizes clinical procedures but also improves clinical efficiency, while reducing deviation and enhancing the accuracy of implant surgery.

Key words: dynamic navigation, registration, U-tube, accuracy

SHAO Xupeng, DONG Chenxin, ZHANG Shu, YANG Shengyin, XIE Zhigang. Effect of Reset Times of Registration U-tube on Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation Implantation[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2026, 42(3): 201-205.

References

[1] Kang S, Hou Y, Cao J, et al. Comparison of implantation accuracy among different navigated approaches: a systematic review and network meta-analysis[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2024, (3): 455-467.
[2] Jorba-García A, González-Barnadas A, Camps-Font O, et al. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(5): 2479-2494.
[3] Wang F, Wang Q, Zhang J. Role of dynamic navigation systems in enhancing the accuracy of implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2021, 79(10): 2061-2070.
[4] Marques-Guasch J, Bofarull-Ballús A, Giralt-Hernando M, et al. Dynamic implant surgery-an accurate alternative to stereolithographic guides-systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Dent J (Basel), 2023, 11(6):150.
[5] Kunakornsawat W, Serichetaphongse P, Arunjaroensuk S, et al. Training of novice surgeons using dynamic computer assisted dental implant surgery: An exploratory randomized trial[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2023, 25(3): 511-518.
[6] Wei T, Ma F, Sun F, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of two different dynamic navigation system registration methods for dental implant placement in the posterior area: An in vitro study[J]. J Pers Med, 2023, 13(1):139.
[7] Widmann G, Stoffner R, Schullian P, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of invasive and noninvasive registration methods for image-guided oral implant surgery[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2010, 25(3): 491-498.
[8] Luebbers HT, Messmer P, Obwegeser JA, et al. Comparison of different registration methods for surgical navigation in cranio-maxillofacial surgery[J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2008, 36(2): 109-116.
[9] Pei X, Weng J, Sun F, et al. Accuracy and efficiency of a calibration approach in dynamic navigation for implant placement: An in vitro study[J]. J Dent Sci, 2024, 19(1): 51-57.
[10] Fan S, Sáenz-Ravello G, Diaz L, et al. The Accuracy of zygomatic implant placement assisted by dynamic computer-aided surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Clin Med, 2023, 12(16):5418.
[11] Stefanelli LV, Graziani U, Pranno N, et al. Accuracy of dynamic navigation surgery in the placement of pterygoid implants[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2020, 40(6): 825-834.
[12] Stefanelli LV, DeGroot BS, Lipton DI, et al. Accuracy of a dynamic dental implant navigation system in a private practice[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2019, 34(1): 205-213.
[13] Jaemsuwan S, Arunjaroensuk S, Kaboosaya B, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of implant position among freehand implant placement, static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: a non-randomized prospective study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2023, 52(2): 264-271.
[14] Wang M, Rausch-Fan X, Zhan Y, et al. Comparison of implant placement accuracy in healed and fresh extraction sockets between static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery navigation systems: A model-based evaluation[J]. Materials (Basel), 2022, 15(8):2806.
[15] Wei SM, Zhu Y, Wei JX, et al. Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021, 32(4): 383-393.
[16] Block MS, Emery RW, Cullum DR, et al. Implant placement is more accurate using dynamic navigation[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2017, 75(7): 1377-1386.
[17] 邵旭鹏,谢志刚.影响动态导航植入精度的临床因素研究进展[J].口腔医学研究,2025,41(2): 96-100.
[18] Lan K, Tao B, Wang F, et al. Accuracy evaluation of 3D-printed noninvasive adhesive marker for dynamic navigation implant surgery in a maxillary edentulous model: An in vitro study[J]. Med Eng Phys, 2022, 103: 103783.
[19] Widmann G, Zangerl A, Schullian P, et al. Do image modality and registration method influence the accuracy of craniofacial navigation?[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2012, 70(9): 2165-2173.
[20] Jorba-García A, Bara-Casaus JJ, Camps-Font O, et al. The influence of radiographic marker registration versus a markerless trace registration method on the implant placement accuracy achieved by dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. An in-vitro study[J]. J Dent, 2024, 146: 105072.
[21] Ruiz-Romero V, Jorba-Garcia A, Camps-Font O, et al. Accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: An in vitro study[J]. J Dent, 2024, 149: 105290.
[22] Ma F, Sun F, Wei T, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of two different dynamic navigation system registration methods for dental implant placement: A retrospective study[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2022, 24(3): 352-360.
[23] Pei X, Liu X, Iao S, et al. Accuracy of 3 calibration methods of computer-assisted dynamic navigation for implant placement: An in vitro study[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2024, 131(4): 668-674.
[24] Guo YQ, Ma Y, Cai SN, et al. Optimal impression materials for implant-supported fixed complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2025, 133(5): 1172-1182.
[25] Roberts H. Three-dimensional change of elastomeric impression materials during the first 24 hours: A pilot study[J]. Oper Dent, 2021, 46(6): E307-E316.
[26] Awod Bin Hassan S, Ali F Alshadidi A, Ibrahim N Aldosari L, et al. Effect of chemical disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyvinyl ether siloxane impression material: a systemic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 471.