Purpose: To compare the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods in the use of dental implant placement, and to assess the influence of the location of missing teeth on these registrations. Methods: 32 resin mandible models and 64 implants were utilized, with implants being placed using one of the two registration methods selected at random. Accuracy was measured through the superimposition of the final and planned implant positions. Angular deviation, 3D entry deviation, and 3D apex deviation were analyzed. Results: The overall mean 3D deviation was 1.089 ± 0.515 mm at the entry point and 1.174 ± 0.531 mm at the apex point, and mean angular deviation was 1.970 ± 1.042 degrees. No significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed when comparing these two registration methods. However, the U-tube method showed significant difference when assessing the location of missing teeth (without distal-extension absence and distal-extension absence), whereas cusp registration was unaffected. Conclusions: Both the U-tube and cusp dynamic navigation system registration methods are accurate when implemented in vitro. Besides, the cusp registration technique can also overcome several of the limitations of the U-tube approach and the accuracy of it was not influenced by the location of the missing teeth, highlighting it as a method worthy of further clinical research.
Keywords: U-tube registration; cusp registration; dental implant placement; dynamic navigation system.