This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

Objectives To assess the literature on the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant surgery in implant dentistry. Materials and Methods Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information about the accuracy of static computer‐assisted implant systems. Meta‐regression analysis was performed to summarise the accuracy studies. Results From a total of 372 articles. 20 studies, one randomised controlled trial (RCT), eight uncontrolled retrospective studies and 11 uncontrolled prospective studies were selected for inclusion for qualitative synthesis. A total of 2,238 implants in 471 patients that had been placed using static guides were available for review. The meta‐analysis of the accuracy (20 clinical) revealed a total mean error of 1.2 mm (1.04 mm to 1.44 mm) at the entry point, 1.4 mm (1.28 mm to 1.58 mm) at the apical point and deviation of 3.5°(3.0° to 3.96°). There was a significant difference in accuracy in favour of partial edentulous comparing to full edentulous cases. Conclusion Different levels of quantity and quality of evidence were available for static computer‐aided implant surgery (s‐CAIS). Based on the present systematic review and its limitations, it can be concluded that the accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery is within the clinically acceptable range in the majority of clinical situations. However, a safety marge of at least 2 mm should be respected. A lack of homogeneity was found in techniques adopted between the different authors and the general study designs.

The invention of computerized axial tomography (now known as computerized tomography) and developments of interactive software to allow virtual planning, with the aim to guide the surgery precisely toward a specific target, has dramatically improved general, as well as oral, surgery. Virtual dental implant planning allows for a prosthetically driven approach, resulting in the best possible design of the prosthesis, better esthetics, optimized occlusion and loading. This approach has also changed the surgical paradigm of using extensive flaps to obtain a proper view of the surgical area because flapless implant surgery, with or without immediate loading, has become more predictable. Two types of guided implant surgery protocols - static and dynamic - are described in the literature. The static approach, better known as computer-guided surgery, refers to the use of a tissue-supported surgical template. This reproduces the virtual implant position directly from computerized tomographic data and this information can be converted to guide templates to be used during surgery, with or without raising a mucoperiosteal flap. Dynamic guided surgery, also called navigation, reproduces the virtual implant position directly from computerized tomographic data and uses motion-tracking technology to guide the implant osteotomy preparation. As the technology developed further, different levels of evidence were presented that showed various degrees of accuracy. Several protocols for guided surgery are available in the literature and are distinguished by different guide production techniques, methods of support and drilling/placement protocols. Currently, implant planning software using cone-beam computerized tomography data has made it possible to plan the optical implant position virtually the optimal implant position, taking the surrounding vital anatomic structures and future prosthetic requirements into consideration. This paper summarizes the evolution and ongoing trends in digital and virtual planning and in implant surgery. The purpose of this overview was to clarify the different concepts in guided surgery and their respective advantages, disadvantages and limitations. The outcome of guided surgery is assessed in terms of implant survival, precision and complications. Clinical cases are given to demonstrate briefly the workflow and clinical guidelines for safe use of these approaches.

Objectives:The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate computerguided implant surgery with tooth-supported drill guides based on CBCT scans and intraoral scanning. Materials and methods:For partially edentulous patients, a prosthetic and surgical planning was completed in the guided surgery software (coDiagnostiX) and drill guides were 3D-printed accordingly. Three months after implant placement, an intraoral scan of the implant's position was used to evaluate the accuracy of placement using the coDiagnostiX treatment evaluation tool. Deviations were reported in degrees and in distance at implant's entry point and apex. Several risk factors, which might influence the accuracy, were evaluated separately: treated jaw, flap design, prior augmentations, amount of unrestored teeth, crowding, location of implants, cortical interference, and implant's length and diameter.

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.