Accuracy And Aesthetic Outcomes Of Two Dynamic Navigation Registration Methods

To compare the implant placement accuracy and prosthetic aesthetic outcomes between U-tube and cusp-matching registration methods in dynamic navigation-guided maxillary anterior single-tooth implant rehabilitation. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 41 implants (37 patients) placed in the maxillary aesthetic zone using dynamic navigation. Postoperative CBCT data were superimposed with preoperative digital plans to calculate entry point deviation, apical point deviation, and angular deviation. Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and White Esthetic Score (WES) were evaluated 6 months post-restoration. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 28.0. The U-tube group (n=27) exhibited entry point deviation (0.76 ± 0.30 mm), apical point deviation (0.84 ± 0.36 mm), and angular deviation (2.55 ± 1.09°), while the cusp-matching group (n=14) showed 0.86 ± 0.31 mm, 0.93 ± 0.38 mm, and 2.36 ± 1.52°, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05). Both groups achieved comparable PES (11.74 ± 1.38 vs. 11.36 ± 1.04) and WES (8.33 ± 1.15 vs. 8.29 ± 1.10) scores (P > 0.05). Cusp-matching registration provides equivalent accuracy and aesthetic outcomes to U-tube registration in dynamic navigation-guided maxillary anterior single-implant placement while offering superior clinical efficiency.