1Reader, Dept of Prosthodontics, S.B Patil Institute for Dental Sciences and Research, Bidar, Karnataka, India. Email: pavan@doctor.com
2Professor & HOD, PG guide, SB Patil Institute for Dental Sciences and Research, Bidar, Karnataka, India. Email: drsidentb@gmail.com
3Professor and HOD, Dept of Public Health Dentistry, SB Patil Institute for Dental Sciences and Research, Bidar, Karnataka, India. Email: drsidgoud@gmail.com
4Senior lecturer, Dept of Prosthodontics, S.B Patil Institute for Dental Sciences and Research, Bidar, Karnataka, India. Email: g.sheshnag@gmail.com
5Senior lecturer, Dept of Prosthodontics, S.B Patil Institute for Dental Sciences and Research, Bidar, Karnataka, India. Email: navapmusic@gmail.com
6Senior lecturer, Dept of Prosthodontics, S.B Patil Institute for Dental Sciences and Research, Bidar, Karnataka, India. Email: gummeshivangini@gmail.com
Corresponding Author: Dr Sidhartha S. P. Behera, Email: drsidentb@gmail.com
Background: Accurate implant placement is essential for the long-term success of dental implants, especially in complex clinical cases where anatomical limitations and prosthetic considerations must be carefully managed. Computer-assisted implant planning has emerged as a digital approach aimed at improving surgical accuracy and treatment predictability compared with conventional free-hand implant placement.
Aim: To compare the effectiveness and accuracy of computer-assisted implant planning with conventional free-hand implant placement in complex implant cases.
Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study included 100 patients requiring dental implant placement in complex clinical scenarios. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: Group I (computer-assisted implant planning) and Group II (free-hand implant placement), with 50 patients in each group. Preoperative evaluation was performed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). In Group I, implants were placed using digitally planned surgical guides, whereas implants in Group II were placed using the conventional free-hand technique. Implant placement accuracy was assessed using postoperative CBCT by measuring angular deviation, coronal deviation, and apical deviation between the planned and actual implant positions. Surgical time and postoperative complications were also recorded. Data were analyzed using SPSS and STATA statistical software, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The computer-assisted group demonstrated significantly lower angular deviation (2.1 ± 0.8° vs 4.6 ± 1.5°), coronal deviation (0.7 ± 0.3 mm vs 1.5 ± 0.6 mm), and apical deviation (1.0 ± 0.4 mm vs 2.2 ± 0.7 mm) compared with the free-hand group (p < 0.001). Additionally, surgical time was significantly shorter in the computer-assisted group. Postoperative complications were also fewer in the guided implant placement group.
Conclusion: Computer-assisted implant planning significantly improves the accuracy and predictability of implant placement compared with conventional free-hand techniques, particularly in complex implant cases.
Keywords: Computer-assisted implant planning, Dental implants, Guided implant surgery, Implant placement accuracy, Free-hand implant placement.
How to cite this article: Machavaram PP, Behera SSP, Goud R S, Sheshnag G, Bulla PS, Gumme S. Comparing the role of computer assisted implant planning vs free hand implant placement in complex cases. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026; 16(8s): 412-418; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.8s.55
Source of support: Nil.
Conflict of interest: None