Evaluating Navigated and Guided Surgery in Dental Implantology: A  Review

Ali  Mirzaei; Amir  Moeintaghavi

doi:10.18502/jcr.v12i4.20995

Ali Mirzaei Student Research Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Amir Moeintaghavi Department of Periodontics, Dental Material Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jcr.v12i4.20995

Keywords: Dental implants; Digital dentistry; Guided surgery; Navigation, Computer-assisted; Oral surgical procedures.

Abstract

Introduction: Navigated surgery (NS) and guided surgery (GS) are computer-assisted technologies that have enhanced precision and predictability in dental implantology. While both approaches improve outcomes over freehand placement, they differ in accuracy, efficiency, and clinical application.

Materials and Methods: This article is a narrative comparative review. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (January 2020–August 2025) for studies directly comparing navigated (NS) and guided (GS) implant surgery. Eligible designs included randomized trials, cohort studies, and systematic reviews. Outcomes assessed were placement accuracy, survival, operative time, complications, and patient/clinician-reported measures. Of 130 records, 47 duplicates were removed; 11 studies were included.

Results: The 11 included studies assessed over 7,500 implants. Meta-analyses found that while NS and GS showed similar coronal and apical accuracy, NS resulted in lower angular deviation. Clinical trials confirmed that GS significantly reduced surgical time. Both techniques demonstrated high implant survival rates (exceeding 95%) with minimal complications and high clinician and patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: Both NS and GS provide accurate and reliable implant placement, each with distinct advantages. NS offers superior angular precision and intraoperative adaptability for anatomically complex cases, while GS provides greater efficiency and simplicity of workflow for routine procedures. As such, these technologies should be considered complementary tools in modern dentistry. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported measures to better inform clinical decision-making.