The Accuracy of Intraoral Registration for Dynamic Surgical Navigation in the Edentulous Maxilla

PURPOSE: Despite the high clinical accuracy of dynamic navigation, inherent sources of error exist. The purpose of this study was to improve the accuracy of dynamic-navigated surgical procedures in the edentulous maxilla by identifying the optimal configuration of intraoral points that results in the lowest possible registration error for direct clinical implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six different four-area configurations (left and right sides; n = 12) were tested by three operators against two negative controls (left and right sides) and one positive control (three-area and eight-area configurations, respectively) using a skull model. The two dynamic navigation systems (X-Guide and Navident) and the two registration methods (bone surface tracing and fiducial markers) produced four registration groups: XG tracing, ND tracing, XG fiducial, and ND fiducial. The accuracy of the registration was checked at the frontal process of the zygoma. Intra- and interoperator reliabilities were reported for each registration group. Multiple comparisons were conducted to find the best configuration with the minimum registration error. RESULTS: Ranking revealed one configuration in the tracing groups (Conf.3) and two configurations in the fiducial groups (Conf.3 and Conf.5) that had the best accuracy. When the inferior surfaces of the zygomatic buttress were excluded, fiducial registration produced better accuracy with both systems (P = .006 and < .0001). However, bilaterally tracing 1-cm areas at these surfaces resulted in similar registration accuracy to placing fiducial markers there (P = .430 and .237). Navident performed generally better (P = .049, .001, and .002), but the values had a wider margin of uncertainty. Changing the distribution of the four tracing areas or fiducial markers had a less pronounced effect with the X-Guide than with the Navident system. CONCLUSIONS: For surgery in the edentulous maxilla, four fiducial markers placed according to Conf.3 or Conf.5 resulted in the lowest registration error. Where implants are being placed bilaterally, an additional two sites may further reduce the error. For bilateral zygomatic implant placement, it is optimal to place two fiducial markers on the inferior surfaces of the maxillary tuberosities, two on their buccal surfaces, and another two on the anterior labial surface of the alveolar bone. Utilizing the inferior zygomatic buttress is recommended over the inferior maxillary tuberosities in other types of maxillary surgeries.