Advances in the application of registration methods of computer-aided dynamic intraoperative navigation in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A systematic review
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online March, 2026
Advances in the application of registration methods of computer-aided dynamic intraoperative navigation in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A systematic review
With the rapid development of medical imaging technology, computer-assisted dynamic intraoperative navigation (CADIN) technology has been introduced into the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery due to its technological features of accurately localizing key anatomical structures during surgery. Registration is a key step in CADIN technology. In different application scenarios, the choice of the registration method directly determines the accuracy of the navigation feedback, which in turn affects the effectiveness and safety of the entire surgery. In this paper, by searching and analyzing the database of articles on the application of CADIN technology in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery for the years 2019–2025. The inclusion criteria are the application, optimization and system design of CADIN technology in oral and maxillofacial surgery. After screening 1069 articles, 42 articles were finally included. An analysis of the articles included in the study revealed that trauma and facial reconstruction guided by CADIN technology are hot research topics in the field of CADIN technology in oral and maxillofacial surgery. There are few reports on the use of CADIN technology to guide the endodontic treatment. In addition, the largest number of studies performed the registration process using the markerless. A review of the literature reveals that CADIN technology has great potential for practical clinical application in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery and that the selection of appropriate registration methods can improve the accuracy of oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures.
DeLongMRGandolfiBMBarrML, et al. Intraoperative image-guided navigation in craniofacial surgery: review and grading of the current literature. J Craniofac Surg2019; 30(2): 465–472.
2.
AnandMPanwarS.Role of navigation in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a surgeon’s perspectives. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent2021; 13: 127–139.
3.
WangJShenYYangS.A practical marker-less image registration method for augmented reality oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg2019; 14(5): 763–773.
4.
SukegawaSKannoTFurukiY.Application of computer-assisted navigation systems in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Jpn Dent Sci Rev2018; 54(3): 139–149.
5.
Landaeta-QuinonesCGHernandezNZarrougNK.Computer-assisted surgery: applications in dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Dent Clin North Am2018; 62: 403–420.
6.
SchreursRBaanFKlopC, et al. Registration-free workflow for electromagnetic and optical navigation in orbital and craniofacial surgery. Sci Rep2021; 11(1): 18080.
7.
RibeiroDReisEMarquesJA, et al. Guided endodontics: static vs. Dynamic computer-aided techniques-a literature review. J Pers Med2022; 12(9): 1516.
8.
Zubizarreta-MachoÁde Pedro MuñozARiad DeglowE, et al. Accuracy of computer-aided dynamic navigation compared to computer-aided static procedure for endodontic access cavities: an in vitro study. J Clin Med2020; 9(1): 129.
9.
AliAArslanH.Effectiveness of the static-guided endodontic technique for accessing the root canal through MTA and its effect on fracture strength. Clin Oral Investig2021; 25(4): 1989–1995.
10.
Gargallo-AlbiolJBarootchiSSalomo-CollO, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of implant navigation surgery. A systematic review. Ann Anat2019; 225: 1–10.
11.
AmundsonMNewmanMChengA, et al. Three-dimensional computer-assisted surgical planning, manufacturing, intraoperative navigation, and computed tomography in maxillofacial trauma. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2020; 28(2): 119–127.
12.
SchreursRBaanFKlopC, et al. Virtual splint registration for electromagnetic and optical navigation in orbital and craniofacial surgery. Sci Rep2021; 11(1): 10406.
13.
MaFSunFWeiT, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of two different dynamic navigation system registration methods for dental implant placement: a retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2022; 24(3): 352–360.
14.
García-SevillaMMoreta-MartinezRGarcía-MatoD, et al. Surgical navigation, augmented reality, and 3D printing for hard palate adenoid cystic carcinoma en-bloc resection: case report and literature review. Front Oncol2021; 11: 741191.
15.
KhurshidZTariqRAsiriFY, et al. Literature search strategies in dental education and research. J Taibah Univ Med Sci2021; 16(6): 799–806.
16.
ZellerANNeuhausMTGesslerN, et al. Self-centering second-generation patient-specific functionalized implants for deep orbital reconstruction. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg2021; 122(4): 372–380.
17.
SozziDFilippiACanziG, et al. Surgical navigation in mandibular reconstruction: accuracy evaluation of an innovative protocol. J Clin Med2022; 11(7): 2060.
18.
SabelisJFSchreursRDuboisL, et al. Clinical validation of the virtual splint registration workflow for craniomaxillofacial surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2025; 54(8): 741–746.
19.
ThakkerJSPaceMLoweI, et al. Virtual surgical planning in maxillofacial trauma. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2019; 27(2): 143–155.
20.
NazimiAJKhooSCNabilS, et al. Intraoperative computed tomography scan for orbital fracture reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg2019; 30(7): 2159–2162.
21.
SchreursRDuboisLHoJPTF, et al. Implant-oriented navigation in orbital reconstruction part II: preclinical cadaver study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2020; 49(5): 678–685.
22.
SchreursRBeckingAGJansenJ, et al. Advanced concepts of orbital reconstruction: a unique attempt to scientifically evaluate individual techniques in reconstruction of large orbital defects. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2021; 29(1): 151–162.
23.
YangJRLiaoHT.Functional and aesthetic outcome of extensive orbital floor and medial wall fracture via navigation and endoscope-assisted reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg2019; 82(1s 1): S77–S85.
24.
DongQNKarinoMKoikeT, et al. Navigation-assisted isolated medial orbital wall fracture reconstruction using an U-HA/PLLA sheet via a transcaruncular approach. J Invest Surg2020; 33(7): 644–652.
25.
SohHYHuLHYuY, et al. Navigation-assisted maxillofacial reconstruction: accuracy and predictability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2022; 51(7): 874–882.
26.
RahimovCRAliyevDURahimovNR, et al. Mixed reality in the reconstruction of orbital floor: an experimental and clinical evaluative study. Ann Maxillofac Surg2022; 12(1): 46–53.
27.
ZhangWBSohHYYuY, et al. Improved procedure for Brown’s Class III maxillary reconstruction with composite deep circumflex iliac artery flap using computer-assisted technique. Comput Assist Surg2021; 26(1): 9–14.
28.
ZhaoRZhuZShaoL, et al. Augmented reality guided in reconstruction of mandibular defect with fibular flap: a cadaver study. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg2023; 124(2): 101318.
29.
SchraderFSaigoLKüblerN, et al. Novel CAD/CAM-splint-based navigation protocol enhances intraoperative maxillary position control in orthognathic surgery: a case control study. Head Face Med2025; 21(1): 1.
30.
HuangLLiuYZhuZ, et al. Application of mixed reality bone registration and positioning technology in orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2025; 54(4): 346–351.
31.
CaoJShenSLiuZ, et al. Evaluation of mandibular symmetry in patients with condylar osteochondroma who underwent intro-oral condylar resection and simultaneous bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg2020; 31(5): 1390–1394.
32.
ChenCSunNJiangC, et al. Accurate transfer of bimaxillary orthognathic surgical plans using computer-aided intraoperative navigation. Korean J Orthod2021; 51(5): 321–328.
33.
LiuSZhangWBYuY, et al. Three-dimensional accuracy of bone contouring surgery for zygomaticomaxillary fibrous dysplasia using virtual planning and surgical navigation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2020; 78(12): 2328–2338.
34.
AydemirCAArısanV.Accuracy of dental implant placement via dynamic navigation or the freehand method: a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res2020; 31(3): 255–263.
35.
OchandianoSGarcía-MatoDGonzalez-AlvarezA, et al. Computer-assisted dental implant placement following free flap reconstruction: virtual planning, CAD/CAM templates, dynamic navigation and augmented reality. Front Oncol2021; 11: 754943.
36.
JärvinenSSuojanenJSuomalainenA, et al. Virtual surgical planning combined with intraoperative navigation in mandibular bilateral sagittal split osteotomy for accurate placement of patient specific implants. J Craniofac Surg2021; 32(8): 2666–2670.
37.
ZhuJSunWLiL, et al. Accuracy and patient-centered results of marker-based and marker-free registrations for dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res2024; 35(1): 101–113.
38.
WuBXueFMaY, et al. Accuracy of automatic and manual dynamic navigation registration techniques for dental implant surgery in posterior sites missing a single tooth: a retrospective clinical analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res2023; 34(3): 221–232.
39.
QinCCaoZFanS, et al. An oral and maxillofacial navigation system for implant placement with automatic identification of fiducial points. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg2019; 14(2): 281–289.
40.
ShenYDaiQTaoB, et al. Real-time dynamic navigation system for the precise quad-zygomatic implant placement in a patient with a severely atrophic maxilla. J Vis Exp2021; (176): e62489. DOI: 10.3791/62489-v.
41.
ZhangYDaiJFuX, et al. Real-time image-guided navigation in the management of alveolar cleft repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J2021; 60(2): 225–232.
42.
ZhangYTaoBWangF, et al. Integrating a mouth opening assessment of virtual patients to prevent intraoperative challenges during treatment. J Prosthet Dent2025; 134(3): 562–567.
43.
YamamotoSHaraSTakenobuT.A splint-to-CT data registration strategy for maxillary navigation surgery. Case Rep Dent2020; 2020: 8871148.
44.
YamamotoSTaniikeNTakenobuT.Application of an open position splint integrated with a reference frame and registration markers for mandibular navigation surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2020; 49(5): 686–690.
45.
NeuhausMTZellerANJehnP, et al. Intraoperative real-time navigation and intraoperative three-dimensional imaging for patient-specific total temporomandibular joint replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2021; 50(10): 1342–1350.
46.
MaCHeSXShangY-Y, et al. Accuracy of maxillary repositioning in Le Fort I osteotomy using a mixed reality based navigation system versus CAD/CAM splints and patient-specific surgical plates: a preclinical study. J Dent2025; 162: 106032.
47.
ZhangJSunJJiangT, et al. Application of individualized osteotomy and registration guide plate in temporomandibular joint gap arthroplasty: a pilot clinical study. Front Oral Health2025; 6: 1655362.
48.
Brouwer de KoningSGGeldofFvan VeenRLP, et al. Electromagnetic surgical navigation in patients undergoing mandibular surgery. Sci Rep2021; 11(1): 4657.
49.
SiJZhangCTianM, et al. Intraoral condylectomy with 3D-printed cutting guide versus with surgical navigation: an accuracy and effectiveness comparison. J Clin Med2023; 12(11): 3816.
50.
LiFHuangCFengX, et al. Intraoperative surgical navigation based on laser scanner for image-guided oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. J Mech Med Biol2024; 24(02): 2440028.
51.
DeanAHeredero-JungSSoliveraJ, et al. Computer-assisted and navigated piezoelectric surgery: a new technology to improve precision and surgical safety in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol2022; 7(3): 684–691.
52.
TelAMurtaFSembronioS, et al. Virtual planning and navigation for targeted excision of intraorbital space-occupying lesions: proposal of a computer-guided protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2022; 51(2): 269–278.
53.
WangYXuXHuangZ, et al. Navigation-based endoscopic enucleation (NBEE) of large mandibular cystic lesions involving the ramus. BMC Oral Health2024; 24(1): 88.
54.
ZhuJHYangRGuoYX, et al. Navigation-guided core needle biopsy for skull base and parapharyngeal lesions: a five-year experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2021; 50(1): 7–13.
55.
HuL-HZhouWZhangW-B, et al. Resection of midfacial tumors assisted by virtual planning based on CT/MRI multimodal image fusion: a cohort study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg2025; 24(3): 674–684.
56.
BenzLHeckKHevisovD, et al. Visualization of pulpal structures by SWIR in endodontic access preparation. J Dent Res2024; 103(13): 1375–1383.
57.
DubronKVan CampPJacobsR, et al. Accuracy of virtual planning and intraoperative navigation in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg2022; 123(6): e841–e848.
58.
SchreursRWildeFSchrammA, et al. Intraoperative feedback and quality control in orbital reconstruction: the past, the present, and the Future. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2021; 29(1): 97–108.
59.
HartmannAKämmererPOrtolanoLC, et al. Customised products for orbital wall reconstruction: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2022; 60(5): e702–e711.
60.
KannoTSukegawaSKarinoM, et al. Navigation-assisted orbital trauma reconstruction using a bioactive osteoconductive/bioresorbable u-HA/PLLA system. J Maxillofac Oral Surg2019; 18(3): 329–338.
61.
SabelisJFSchreursREssigH, et al. Personalized medicine workflow in post-traumatic orbital reconstruction. J Pers Med2022; 12(9): 1366.
62.
ParameswaranAPandeyMPanneerselvamE, et al. Does intraoperative navigation improve implant position accuracy in orbital fracture repair?Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med2024; 26(5): 626–630.
63.
KantarRSCeradiniDJGelbBE, et al. Facial transplantation for an irreparable central and lower face injury: a modernized approach to a classic challenge. Plast Reconstr Surg2019; 144(2): 264e–283e.
64.
KhatibBCuddyKChengA, et al. Functional anatomic computer engineered surgery protocol for the management of self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the maxillofacial skeleton. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2018; 76(3): 580–594.
65.
Van den BemptMLiebregtsJMaalT, et al. Toward a higher accuracy in orthognathic surgery by using intraoperative computer navigation, 3D surgical guides, and/or customized osteosynthesis plates: a systematic review. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2018; 46(12): 2108–2119.
66.
AmanHMAleneziADucicY, et al. Secondary reconstruction of the zygomaticomaxillary complex. Semin Plast Surg2020; 34(4): 254–259.
67.
SharmaPRattanVRaiS, et al. Does intraoperative computed tomography improve the outcome in zygomatico-orbital complex fracture reduction?J Maxillofac Oral Surg2021; 20(2): 189–200.
68.
García-MatoDOchandianoSGarcía-SevillaM, et al. Craniosynostosis surgery: workflow based on virtual surgical planning, intraoperative navigation and 3D printed patient-specific guides and templates. Sci Rep2019; 9(1): 17691.
69.
ZhangQWuWQianC, et al. Advanced biomaterials for repairing and reconstruction of mandibular defects. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl2019; 103: 109858.
70.
PanchalNMahmoodLRetanaA, et al. Dynamic navigation for dental implant surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2019; 31(4): 539–547.
71.
WuYWangFHuangW, et al. Real-time navigation in zygomatic implant placement: workflow. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am2019; 31(3): 357–367.
72.
BlockMS.How to avoid errors when using navigation to place implants - a narrative review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2023; 81(3): 299–307.
73.
RothweilerRMetzgerMCVossPJ, et al. Interdisciplinary management of skull base surgery. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res2021; 11(4): 601–607.
74.
JainSDCarricoCKBermanisI.3-Dimensional accuracy of dynamic navigation technology in locating calcified canals. J Endod2020; 46(6): 839–845.
75.
DianatONosratATordikPA, et al. Accuracy and efficiency of a dynamic navigation system for locating calcified canals. J Endod2020; 46(11): 1719–1725.
76.
Lara-MendesSTOBarbosaCFMMachadoVC, et al. A new approach for minimally invasive access to severely calcified anterior teeth using the guided endodontics technique. J Endod2018; 44(10): 1578–1582.
77.
ZhangH-XYanZ-YCuiN-H, et al. Accuracy of computer-assisted dynamic navigation when performing coronectomy of the mandibular third molar: a pilot study. J Dent2023; 139: 104762.
78.
MaD-YZhangS-MPangC-Y, et al. A serial case study of the combined use of intraoperative CT and surgical navigation system for the removal of small foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region. Chin J Traumatol2024; 27(5): 279–283.
79.
ChenYDuSLinZ, et al. Application of trans-sutural distraction osteogenesis based on an optical surgical navigation system to correct midfacial dysplasia. Sci Rep2022; 12(1): 13181.
80.
SatoHShiogamaSNarihiraK, et al. Removal of small foreign bodies from the maxillary sinus using CT image-guided surgical navigation and rapid paired-point registration and calibration with reference markers on an occlusal splint. Oral Maxillofac Surg Cases2019; 5(1): 597.
81.
LiDZhuMWangS, et al. A Vision-based navigation system with markerless image registration and position-sensing localization for oral and maxillofacial surgery. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas2023; 72: 1–11.
82.
JiangJZhangJSunJ, et al. User’s image perception improved strategy and application of augmented reality systems in smart medical care: a review. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg2023; 19(3): e2497.
83.
GsaxnerCEckUSchmalstiegD, et al. Augmented reality in oral and maxillofacial surgery. In: EggerJChenX (eds) Computer-aided oral and maxillofacial surgery. Academic Press, 2021, pp. 107–139.
84.
HouYChaiGQiZ.A novel precise optical navigation system for craniomaxillofacial surgery registered with an Occlusal Splint. J Craniofac Surg2022; 33(1): 344–349.
85.
ZhaoYLiYLiZ, et al. Removal of orbital metallic foreign bodies with image-guided surgical navigation. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg2020; 36(3): 305–310.
86.
LinLGaoYChaiG, et al. Electromagnetic navigation in craniofacial surgery based on automatic registration of dental splints. J Craniofac Surg2020; 31(2): 393–396.
87.
SunMLinLChenX, et al. Robot-assisted mandibular angle osteotomy using electromagnetic navigation. Ann Transl Med2021; 9(7): 567.
88.
MaLJiangWZhangB, et al. Augmented reality surgical navigation with accurate CBCT-patient registration for dental implant placement. Med Biol Eng Comput2019; 57(1): 47–57.
89.
ShirotaTShiogamaSAsamaY, et al. CAD/CAM splint and surgical navigation allows accurate maxillary segment positioning in Le Fort I osteotomy. Heliyon2019; 5(7): e02123.
90.
HanJJWooS-YYiWJ, et al. A robot arm and image-guided navigation assisted surgical system for maxillary repositioning in orthognathic surgery: a phantom skull-based trial. Appl Sci2020; 10(4): e02123.
91.
MetzgerMCRafiiAHolhweg-MajertB, et al. Comparison of 4 registration strategies for computer-aided maxillofacial surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2016; 137(1): 93–99.
92.
JiangTZhuMChaiG, et al. Precision of a novel craniofacial surgical navigation system based on augmented reality using an occlusal splint as a registration strategy. Sci Rep2019; 9(1): 501.
93.
SukegawaSYonedaSKannoT, et al. Optical surgical navigation-assisted removal of a foreign body using a splint to simplify the registration process: a case report. J Med Case Rep2019; 13(1): 209.
94.
HwangY-EKangS-HKimH-K.Errors according to the number of registered markers used in navigation-assisted surgery of the mandible. Head Face Med2019; 15(1): 6.
95.
HanBLiRHuangT, et al. An accurate 3D augmented reality navigation system with enhanced autostereoscopic display for oral and maxillofacial surgery. Int J Med Robot2022; 18(4): e2404.
96.
NovelliGMorettiMMeazziniMC, et al. Introduction to surgical navigation in oral surgery: a case-series. Oral2023; 3(2): 146–154.
97.
HuYZhuMWangS, et al. A novel lightweight navigation system for oral and maxillofacial surgery using an external curved self-identifying checkerboard. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng2024; 21(2): 1434–1444.
98.
AhnJChoiHHongJ, et al. Tracking accuracy of a stereo camera-based augmented reality navigation system for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2019; 77(5): 1070.e1–1070.e11.
99.
BadialiGCercenelliLBattagliaS, et al. Review on augmented reality in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery: toward “surgery-specific” head-up displays. IEEE Access2020; 8: 59015–59028.
100.
LeeTYZaidWS.Broken dental needle retrieval using a surgical navigation system: a case report and literature review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol2015; 119(2): e55–e59.
101.
MaQKobayashiESuenagaH, et al. Autonomous surgical robot with camera-based markerless navigation for oral and maxillofacial surgery. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2020; 25(2): 1084–1094.
102.
GaoYQinCTaoB, et al. An electromagnetic tracking implantation navigation system in dentistry with virtual calibration. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg2021; 17(2): e2215.
