Smiling woman with white hair in studio setting

Home / Implants / Procedures

Guided implant surgery and CBCT planning

Guided surgery plans the implant position on a 3D CBCT scan and transfers the plan to surgery with a printed guide (static) or real-time tracking (dynamic navigation). Accuracy is within about 1 to 1.5 mm on average, and a 2 mm safety margin is recommended.

Planning with a 3D scan

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a cross-sectional (3D) imaging method.1 The American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology recommends cross-sectional imaging for all dental implant sites and names CBCT as the imaging method of choice.1 The ITI Group 5 consensus (2018) found that the accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans depends on the software used.2

Static guides

In static guided surgery, the implant position is planned on the computer and transferred to surgery with a fixed surgical guide.3

An ITI meta-analysis of 20 clinical studies with 2,238 implants in 471 patients measured how close the placed implant came to the plan.3

MeasureMean deviation
At the entry point1.2 mm
At the implant tip1.4 mm
Angle3.5 degrees

Guides were more accurate in partially edentulous cases than in fully edentulous cases.3 The authors recommended a safety margin of at least 2 mm.3

The ITI consensus found static guided surgery beneficial compared with conventional surgery for pain and discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications.2 It also noted that flapless guided surgery can place implants outside the zone of firm gum tissue and must be done with care.2 The consensus described guided surgery as an additional tool for diagnosis, planning and surgery.2

Dynamic navigation

Dynamic navigation (dynamic computer-aided implant surgery) is a second computer-guided method.4 A meta-analysis of 24 studies covering 9 navigation systems found the following in clinical studies.4

MeasureMean deviation
Angle3.68 degrees
Entry point1.03 mm

Dynamic navigation was more accurate than freehand placement and slightly more accurate in angle than static guides.4 The authors also recommended a 2 mm safety margin.4

Robotic guidance

Robot-assisted systems are a third approach; see the robotic surgery topic.5

Questions to ask

  • Will a CBCT scan be taken before surgery.
  • Will the implant be placed freehand, with a guide, with navigation or with a robot.
  • Who designs the plan, and is the restoration planned before the implant position.

General information about dental implants. Treatment decisions are made with a licensed dentist.

Sources

  1. Tyndall DA et al. AAOMR position statement on selection criteria for radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on CBCT. 2012. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Wismeijer D et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  3. Tahmaseb A et al. Accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  4. Jorba-Garcia A et al. Accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2021. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  5. Alqutaibi AY et al. Robot-assisted dental implant surgery: systematic review of clinical evidence. J Prosthet Dent 2026. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Evidence

Sourced facts

Each line links to the study or the specialty body it comes from.

  1. The American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology recommends cross-sectional imaging for all dental implant sites, with CBCT as the imaging method of choice.

    Tyndall DA et al. AAOMR position statement on selection criteria for radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on CBCT. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012 · checked October 2, 2026

  2. An ITI meta-analysis of 2,238 implants placed with static guides found mean deviation of 1.2 mm at the entry point, 1.4 mm at the tip and 3.5 degrees in angle.

    Tahmaseb A et al. Accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis (ITI). Clin Oral Implants Res 2018 · checked October 2, 2026

  3. The same review recommended a safety margin of at least 2 mm and found partially edentulous cases more accurate than fully edentulous cases.

    Tahmaseb A et al. Accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis (ITI). Clin Oral Implants Res 2018 · checked October 2, 2026

  4. The ITI Group 5 consensus (2018) found static guided surgery beneficial for pain and discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications compared with conventional surgery.

    Wismeijer D et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018 · checked October 2, 2026

  5. The consensus stated that the accuracy of CBCT measurements depends on the software used.

    Wismeijer D et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018 · checked October 2, 2026

  6. A meta-analysis of dynamic navigation found mean angular deviation of 3.68 degrees and entry deviation of 1.03 mm in clinical studies, more accurate than freehand placement.

    Jorba-Garcia A et al. Accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2021 · checked October 2, 2026

  7. Robot-assisted implant surgery showed accuracy comparable to or better than static guides and dynamic navigation in a 2026 review.

    Alqutaibi AY et al. Robot-assisted dental implant surgery: systematic review of clinical evidence. J Prosthet Dent 2026 · checked October 2, 2026

Woman with short grey hair sitting on couch

Florida

Implant doctors near you

Ranked from public data: reviews, search visibility, associations and implant pages.

Top doctors by region

Featured

Featured doctor

Featured doctors advertise with the publisher. Featured placement does not change a score or a rank. Disclosure

Dr. Michael Pawlus
Featured

Dr. Michael Pawlus

Periodontist · Sarasota

ICOI Fellow, ICOI Diplomate · AAP member

Featured doctorDr. Michael Pawlus · Sarasota