Conventional guide vs. guided surgery guides

Abstract

Implantology has evolved significantly over the years, incorporating more precise and predictable techniques for oral rehabilitation. In this context, surgical guides play a fundamental role in optimizing the positioning of dental implants, ensuring greater safety and efficiency in procedures. Given this scenario, it is essential to understand the differences between conventional guides and guides for guided surgery, analyzing their indications, benefits, and limitations. In this context, this article aimed to conduct a literature review on these approaches, discussing their applicability in contemporary implantology and contributing to the choice of the most appropriate method for each clinical case. The research was conducted through a literature review, in which scientific articles, books, and specialized journals published between 2000 and 2025 were analyzed, using databases such as Google Scholar, CAPES, and BVS. The literature analyzed revealed that conventional guides, although still widely used in less complex cases, are based on physical impressions and two-dimensional radiographs, offering a more generic approach. In contrast, digital guides, which use software assisted three-dimensional planning technology and 3D printing, allow for personalized adjustment to the patient's anatomy, providing greater control over the position, depth and angulation of implants, in addition to reducing risks and complications. Thus, the review emphasizes the superiority of digital guides for more complex cases, highlighting their advantages in the accuracy of preoperative planning and in the aesthetic and functional results. The conclusion indicates that, although conventional guides are still valid in some situations, the combination of digital planning and advanced materials, such as high-performance plastics and titanium, takes implant dentistry to a new level of efficiency and predictability.