Comparison of the accuracy of guided implant surgery between two implant-planning software: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose To evaluate the difference of a single posterior implant of the same length between planned and actual positions for two commonly used static implant planning software packages following a tooth-supported partially guided surgery protocol. Materials and methods There are 75 implant placement cases were included in this retrospective study. 40 were designed using the GuideMia Implant System, and 35 were designed using 3Shape Implant Studio. The implant position on the postoperative cone-beam computed tomography was superimposed on the planned implant position. Coronal, apical, and angular deviations in the 3D direction were measured for each group using an additional evaluation software program. Six risk factors that may influence the accuracy were evaluated separately: jaw, location, implant system, missing teeth at the free end, and implant length and diameter. Linear regression models were established to analyze the source of deviation. Results No statistically significant differences were observed between the two implant planning software programs no matter the implant length is 8 mm, 10 mm, or 12 mm ( P > 0.05). Significant differences were observed at the entry point ( P = 0.003), apex ( P = 0.005), and angle ( P = 0.002) between the free and non-free ends. Conclusions The implant planning programs showed similar results regarding the implant position accuracy of the same length. However, an implant located at the free end of a single missing posterior tooth has a significant influence on the accuracy.