Navident EVO

After 6 months in the field — A Report

Long time Navident users explain the experience with Navident EVO and compare it with Navident UNO

Dr. Jacques Vermeulen

How long have you been using Navident UNO and when did you receive your Navident EVO.

I started using Navident UNO in 2019, first occasionally and afterwards more systematically when I was fully up to speed with the protocol and technology. I was very satisfied with Navident UNO.

I received EVO in the beginning of 2023 and kept the UNO system for 3 months in my clinic as a precaution. I wanted to make sure that EVO worked perfectly and I was pleasantly surprised by EVO’s performance and the software’s user-friendliness.

95% of implant surgeries are now performed with EVO.

What prompted you to buy the upgrade?

The technical improvements in EVO versus UNO, such as: impression registration, autoclavable parts that are smaller and lighter and especially the handpiece tracker which has no blank spots for the Navident camera – which was a major flaw on the Navident UNO.

The protocol for complete edentulous cases using impression registration, without the need for osteosynthesis screws, played a positive role in my decision.

Future developments in EVO also convinced me. The forthcoming (I hope) possibility of controlling the implantology engine and photogrammetric impression taking were also important factors in my decision.

How many cases have you performed with each system? Estimated.

I estimate having carried out at least 150 clinical cases with Navident UNO, and to date I’ve carried out 70 clinical cases with Navident EVO. This translates in over 500 implants placed with Navident.

What are your impressions of the improvements made to the EVO system?

The EVO system is:

  • Speed and user-friendliness of the planning software. For example, with Navident UNO, I used to carry out an implant pre-study on Simplant and since I’ve got EVO, I’ve totally abandoned this pre-study. I now carry out the study directly on EVO.
  • Ease of STL matching, either from the optical impression or from a study of the prosthetic project by the laboratory. It only takes a few seconds!
  • Impression registration eliminates the need for tracing (saving 1 to 2 minutes) and the need to place osteosynthesis screws in the case of the completely edentulous, or in the case of immediate implant extraction. (For the time being, I’m keeping the use of screws in my clinical practice, so as to be able to control accuracy during surgery).

Do you have any suggestions for our development roadmap?

Obviously, EVO needs to evolve, and one of the simple suggestions I have would be to be able to generate a pre-op planning report with the implant specifications for each implant, to be handed over to the dental assistant and facilitate the ordering of implants. I currently print out a screenshot.

  • Generate a post-op report at the end of surgery.
  • Evolve “Evalunav” with photogrammetry to avoid a 2nd irradiation of the patient (highly contested by the scientific world).Implement implant motor assistance and photogrammetry rapidly.
  • Enable the use of augmented reality glasses during surgery.
  • Placement assistance, either with a system like “Yomi” using a robotic arm to block the axis, or with a tactile feedback system such as we have on car steering wheels to secure the axis.
  • For the time being, Navident remains a dependent practitioner! This is an advantage, but also a disadvantage for the future.

Would you recommend it to a colleague and why?

I would simply say that the future lies in dynamically guided surgery! Implant placement without planning and dynamic assistance would be like driving a car without GPS, airbag or a braking assistant. The time lag between planning and dynamic guided surgery is negligible.

24 years ago, when I tried to convince my colleagues that the use of a static guide would be the future, I was preaching to the choir. Today, ALL young practitioners use static guidance…! In fact, they’re 20 years behind the times …!

Today, we need to invest in dynamic guidance, which allows a rapid transition from planning to surgery and avoids the use of highly polluting and expensive resins. Partial robotization of implant placement will soon become an obligation.

Dr. Mohamed Fayad
Dr. Silvia La Rosa
Dr. Marc Miller
Dr. Luca Comuzzi