journal article·2025-10-31Open access

Accuracy of Miniscrew Insertion with Fully Guided Dynamic Navigation Versus Freehand: An In Vitro Experimental Study

Cristina De-la-Rosa-Gay, David Mesalles-Cervera, Adrià Jorba-García, Víctor Ruiz-Romero, Tania Moya-Martínez, Octavi Camps-Font, Marina Crego-Ruiz, Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón, Rui Figueiredo

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 21

Abstract

The placement of miniscrews in orthodontics enhances dental and skeletal movements with reduced need for patient cooperation but may lead to complications such as incorrect positioning or damage to adjacent teeth. Computer-assisted surgery techniques have shown improved accuracy and reduced risks. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the X-Guide® dynamic navigation system with the freehand method for orthodontic miniscrew insertion and to assess the influence of screw position and side on accuracy. The main hypothesis was that the X-Guide® system would yield superior accuracy in the primary variable (3D apical deviation) compared to the freehand technique. Secondary hypotheses were that the X-Guide® system would also demonstrate superior accuracy in the secondary parameters (3D entry deviation, angular deflection, apical depth, and 2D entry deviation) and that screw position and side would not significantly affect any of the outcomes. An in vitro, randomized, and blinded experimental design was used with 10 maxillary models divided into two groups: experimental (X-Guide®) and control (freehand). In each model, six miniscrews were planned using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): three were inserted freehand and three with navigation. A trained novice clinician performed all insertions. Post-placement CBCT scans were used to compare 3D deviations between planned and actual positions. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Friedman’s ANOVA were applied. In conclusion, the results supported the main hypothesis regarding the primary variable: the X-Guide® system significantly improved miniscrew placement accuracy in terms of 3D apical deviation, even when used by a novice operator. However, the results partially rejected the secondary hypotheses related to precision, showing a significant improvement in 3D entry deviation with dCAS, but not in angular deflection or 2D measured parameters. Furthermore, the results supported the secondary hypothesis regarding screw position, which did not affect the outcomes. Nevertheless, with dCAS, a significantly greater deviation was found on the right side for 3D entry deviation, 2D entry deviation, and angular deflection.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Temporomandibular Joint Disorders · Dental materials and restorations

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, 08907 Barcelona, Spain

Group of Dental and Maxillofacial Pathology and Therapeutics, IDIBELL Research Institute, 08908 Barcelona, Spain

Clínica Dental Dents. Av. Prat de la Riba 77, 25004 Lleida, Spain

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. Orthodontic maximum anchorages in malocclusion treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis10.1111/jebm.12453 ↗
2. Tooth Complications after Orthodontic Miniscrews Insertion10.3390/ijerph20021562 ↗
3. Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.027 ↗
4. Surgical repair of root perforation caused by an orthodontic miniscrew implant10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.032 ↗
5. Root proximity is a major factor for screw failure in orthodontic anchorage10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.017 ↗
6. Navigation-Guided Surgical Removal of an Orthodontic Miniscrew Accidentally Displaced into the Prevertebral Space10.1097/SCS.0000000000010572 ↗
7. Influence of orthodontic mini-implant penetration of the maxillary sinus in the infrazygomatic crest region10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.021 ↗
8. Maxillary sinus perforation by orthodontic anchor screws10.2334/josnusd.57.95 ↗
9. Guarnieri, R., Grenga, C., Altieri, F., Rocchetti, F., Barbato, E., and Cassetta, M. (2023). Can computer-guided surgery help orthodontics in miniscrew insertion and corticotomies? A narrative review. Front. Oral Health, 4.10.3389/froh.2023.1196813 ↗
10. Cone beam computed tomography: Basics and applications in dentistry10.17096/jiufd.00289 ↗
11. Time and costs related to computer-assisted versus non-computer-assisted implant planning and surgery. A systematic review10.1111/clr.13862 ↗
12. Santmartí-Oliver, M., Jorba-García, A., Moya-Martínez, T., De-La-Rosa-Gay, C., and Camps-Font, O. (2024). Safety and Accuracy of Guided Interradicular Miniscrew Insertion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med., 13.10.3390/jcm13247697 ↗
13. Accuracy of Miniscrew Implant Placement With a 3-Dimensional Surgical Guide10.1016/j.joms.2007.08.047 ↗
14. Mihit, F.Z.M., Zubizarreta-Macho, Á., Montiel-Company, J.M., and Martínez, A.A. (2023). Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the accuracy of the orthodontic mini-implants placed in the inter-radicular space by image-guided-based techniques. BMC Oral Health, 23.10.1186/s12903-023-03079-8 ↗
15. Are Sleeves Necessary in Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery? A Comparative In Vitro Analysis10.1111/clr.14368 ↗
16. Influence of surgical guide support and implant site location on accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery10.1111/clr.13520 ↗
17. Current state of the art of computer-guided implant surgery10.1111/prd.12175 ↗
18. Comparison of the accuracy of implant position among freehand implant placement, static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: A non-randomized prospective study10.1016/j.ijom.2022.05.009 ↗
19. Comparison of the accuracy of implant position for two-implants supported fixed dental prosthesis using static and dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: A randomized controlled clinical trial10.1111/cid.12949 ↗
20. Accuracy of a dynamic guided surgery system for orthodontic miniscrew placement: An experimental in vitro study
21. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research10.4103/0972-0707.136338 ↗
22. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer–aided implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1007/s00784-021-03833-8 ↗
23. Root perforation associated with the use of a miniscrew implant used for orthodontic anchorage: A case report10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02022.x ↗
24. Root canal treatment of a periradicular lesion caused by unintentional root damage after orthodontic miniscrew placement: A case report10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01933.x ↗
25. Implant Placement Accuracy Using Dynamic Navigation10.11607/jomi.5004 ↗
26. Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation for Dental Implant Placement—Model-Based Evaluation10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00025 ↗
27. Accuracy of a Novel Trace-Registration Method for Dynamic Navigation Surgery10.11607/prd.4420 ↗
28. Accuracy and safety of real-time navigation during insertion of temporary anchorage devices—A randomized clinical trial10.1016/j.jds.2025.01.026 ↗
29. Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation Surgery in the Placement of Pterygoid Implants10.11607/prd.4605 ↗
30. The influence of radiographic marker registration versus a markerless trace registration method on the implant placement accuracy achieved by dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. An in-vitro study10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105072 ↗
31. Computerized navigation surgery for the safe placement of palatal implants10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.016 ↗
32. How palatal vault morphology and screw length influence the accuracy of dynamic computer-guided orthodontic miniscrew insertion. A prospective clinical study10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105093 ↗
33. Accuracy of dental implant placement with or without the use of a dynamic navigation assisted system: A randomized clinical trial10.1111/clr.14050 ↗
34. Patient and miniscrew implant factors influence the success of orthodontic miniscrew implants: Question: In orthodontic patients, what are the prognostic factors affecting the success rates of miniscrew implants inserted into the buccal posterior region?10.1038/sj.ebd.6401202 ↗
35. Effect of mini-implant length and diameter on primary stability under loading with two force levels10.1093/ejo/cjq088 ↗
36. Influence of bone density, screw size and surgical procedure on orthodontic mini-implant placement—Part B: Implant stability10.1016/j.ijom.2020.07.003 ↗
37. Predictors of initial stability of orthodontic miniscrew implants10.1093/ejo/cjq122 ↗
38. Does the operator’s generational cohort influence the accuracy of orthodontic miniscrews insertion in the palatine vault in dynamic computer-guided surgery? A randomized prospective study10.1007/s10006-025-01414-7 ↗