APPLICATION OF A DYNAMIC NAVIGATION SYSTEM IN A COMPLEX IMPLANT PLACEMENT: A CASE REPORT
Main Article Content
Abstract
Dental implant therapy has been proven to be an effective approach for restoring missing teeth, in which precise implant placement is critical to long-term success. Accordingly, navigation systems have been implemented to enhance accuracy and minimize complications. This report presents a clinical case of severe maxillary bone resorption in the posterior region, characterized by a large maxillary sinus, residual bone height of less than 2 mm, and poor bone quality (classified as D4 according to Misch). Furthermore, based on the classification proposed by Sun et al. (2023) for pterygoid implants, this case was categorized as type D, in which the whole implant body is completely contained within the maxillary sinus cavity. Therefore, the patient was indicated for treatment using a trans-sinus pterygoid implant placement assisted by a dynamic navigation system. Postoperatively, the patient exhibited improved masticatory and phonetic function, with no biological or mechanical complications observed. The deviations at the two pterygoid implant sites were 1.74 mm (neck), 2.83 mm (apex), and 4.48° (angle) at R17, and 1.41 mm (neck), 2.40 mm (apex), and 2.88° (angle) at R27. For the three anterior implant sites, the deviations were 1.42 mm (neck), 1.97 mm (apex), and 3.18° (angle) at R14; 1.11 mm (neck), 1.50 mm (apex), and 3.99° (angle) at R21; and 1.03 mm (neck), 2.36 mm (apex), and 4.36° (angle) at R24. Radiographic examination at the 2-year follow-up showed stable implants with successful osseointegration. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of navigation systems in complex anatomical situations.
Article Details
Keywords
: freehand, static navigation, dynamic navigation, pterygoid implant.
References
2. Howe MS, Keys W, Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J Dent. 2019;84:9-21. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008.
3. Muchnik D, Chaushu G, Rosenfeld E, et al. Implant displacement to the maxillary sinus- a retrospective multicenter cohort study and a management protocol. Int J Implant Dent. 2025;11(1):44. doi:10.1186/s40729-025-00629-3.
4. Dryer RR, Conrad HJ. Displacement of a Dental Implant into the Pterygoid Fossa: A Clinical Report. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(9):1044-1046. doi:10.1111/jopr.13126.
5. Vrielinck L, Politis C, Schepers S, Pauwels M, Naert I. Image-based planning and clinical validation of zygoma and pterygoid implant placement in patients with severe bone atrophy using customized drill guides. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;32(1):7-14. doi:10.1054/ijom.2002.0337.
6. Misch C. Bone character: second vital implant criterion. Dent today. 1988;7:39.
7. Sun Y, Xu C, Wang N, Wu Y, Liu Y, Fan S, Wang F. Virtual pterygoid implant planning in maxillary atrophic patients: prosthetic-driven planning and evaluation. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):9. doi:10.1186/s40729-023-00472-4.
8. Jorba-García A, González-Barnadas A, Camps-Font O, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(5):2479-2494. doi:10.1007/s00784-021-03833-8.