[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-460239-105":59,"doc-detail-460239-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","comparative-analysis-of-dynamic-versus-static-navigation-in-implant-placement-accuracy-original-research","Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Versus Static Navigation in Implant Placement Accuracy - Original Research","","Precision in implant placement is critical to clinical success in implant dentistry, and computer-aided navigation systems—static and dynamic—have been introduced to improve accuracy. Comparative evidence remains limited on how these modalities differ in deviation metrics. This study evaluates dynamic navigation versus static guided systems by measuring angular deviation, global entry deviation, and apical deviation. Results show dynamic navigation achieves lower mean deviations across all outcomes assessed.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/comparative-analysis-of-dynamic-versus-static-navigation-in-implant-placement-accuracy-original-research/460239/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/comparative-analysis-of-dynamic-versus-static-navigation-in-implant-placement-accuracy-original-research/460239.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"SANS","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":52},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the study’s primary objective?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To compare implant placement accuracy between dynamic navigation and static guided systems using angular deviation, global entry deviation, and apical deviation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How many patients and implants were included?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"A total of 20 partially edentulous patients were recruited, with 40 implants placed—two implants per patient, one with static navigation and one with dynamic navigation.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which navigation method showed better accuracy and what outcomes improved?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Dynamic navigation demonstrated superior accuracy, with significantly lower angular deviation, entry point deviation, and apical deviation compared with static guidance.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},460239,1790901698,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":52,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":81,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":39,"preview_page_count":4},962090760505,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Original Research  \nComparative Analysis of Dynamic Versus Static Navigation in Implant Placement Accuracy  \nPratesh Nitin Dholabhai1, Vijay Parmar2, Jaiganesh Ramamurthy3, Noor Addeen Abo Arsheed4, Adyasha Mohanty5, Sameer Gupta6  \n1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery,  \nK. M. Shah Dental College and Hospital, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed tobe University), Vadodara, Gujarat, India, 2Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rajkot, Gujarat, India, 3Department of Periodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, 4Department of Restorative Dentistry, Mahsa University, Selangor, Malaysia, 5Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed tobe University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, 6Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Inderprastha Dental College and Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India  \nSubmitted: 04‑Jul‑2025  \nRevised: 10‑Jul‑2025  \nAccepted: 26‑Jul‑2025  \nPublished: 17‑Dec‑2025  \nAbstract  \nBackground: Precision in implant placement is a critical determinant of clinical success in implant dentistry. Computer‑aided navigation systems, including static and dynamic modalities, have been developed to enhance accuracy. However, comparative data evaluating their effectiveness remain limited. Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant placement using dynamic navigation versus static guided systems in terms of angular deviation, global entry deviation, and apical deviation. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 implants were placed in 20 partially edentulous patients. Each patient received two implants: one using static navigation and the other with dynamic navigation. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography scans were analyzed using specialized implant planning software to calculate deviations in implant position relative to preoperative planning. Mean deviations were compared using paired t‑tests. Results: The mean angular deviation was significantly lower in the dynamic navigation group (2.15° ±0.68°) compared to the static group (3.74° ±1.12°; P \u003C 0.001) . Entry point deviation averaged 0.78 ± 0.25 mm for dynamic navigation and 1.14 ± 0.38 mm for static guidance (P = 0.003) . Apical deviation was 1.12 ± 0.31 mm for dynamic navigation versus 1.55 ± 0.49 mm for static navigation (P = 0.001) . Conclusion: Dynamic navigation demonstrated superior accuracy compared to static guidance in implant placement. These findings suggest that dynamic systems may offer clinicians enhanced control and precision, especially in anatomically complex cases.  \nKeywords: Accuracy, dynamic navigation, implant   \nIntroduction  \nThe success of dental implant therapy relies  \nsignificantly on the precise positioning of implants in three‑dimensional space.[1] Inaccurate placement can result in biomechanical overload, esthetic failure, or damage to anatomical structures.[2] With the evolution of digital dentistry, computer‑aided implant navigation has  \n\n| Access this article online |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Quick Response Code:\u003Cbr>| Website: [https://journals.lww.com/jpbs](https://journals.lww.com/jpbs) |\n|  | DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1172_25 |\n\nemerged as a valuable adjunct to conventional surgical protocols.[3]  \nAddress for correspondence: Dr. Jaiganesh Ramamurthy, Department of Periodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.  \nE‑mail: [dr.r.jaiganesh@gmail.com](dr.r.jaiganesh@gmail.com)  \nThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License (CC BY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.  \nFor reprints [contact:](contact: W","cbCainF9DWKoPA2T","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainF9DWKoPA2T","pdf",561216,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## Background and rationale\n# Objective\n# Materials and Methods\n## Participants and design\n# Results\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What was the study’s primary objective?\",\"answer\":\"To compare implant placement accuracy between dynamic navigation and static guided systems using angular deviation, global entry deviation, and apical deviation.\"},{\"question\":\"How many patients and implants were included?\",\"answer\":\"A total of 20 partially edentulous patients were recruited, with 40 implants placed—two implants per patient, one with static navigation and one with dynamic navigation.\"},{\"question\":\"Which navigation method showed better accuracy and what outcomes improved?\",\"answer\":\"Dynamic navigation demonstrated superior accuracy, with significantly lower angular deviation, entry point deviation, and apical deviation compared with static guidance.\"}]","Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Versus Static Navigation in Implant Placement Accuracy - Original Research | PDF",1790758067]