A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Conventional and Computer-Assisted Implant Planning and Placement in Partially Edentulous Patients. Part 4: Accuracy of Implant Placement

Static computer‐aided, partially guided, and free‐handed implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Analysis of the evidence on apical deviation showed a significant discrepancy in final implant position between FHIP and sCAIP, in favor of the latter approach (p < .00001, MD = 1.13 mm, 95% CI 0.92-1.34, I 2 = 97.0%), as depicted in Figure 4c. Including in the analysis the second test group in the study by Schneider et al (Schneider et al, 2019), yet again, a similar outcome was observed (p < .00001, MD = 1.11 mm, 95% CI 0.91-1.32, I 2 = 97.0%) ( Figure 4c). For this parameter, none of the comparisons involving PGIP versus.…”

“…In the same study, only 9 of the final 12 enrolled patients agreed to contribute to the PROMs. While Schneider et al (2019) reported the exclusion of 19 cases from data analysis due to intraoperative deviation from the computer-aided placement protocol, the overall data analysis including those cases was still reported (Schneider et al, 2019). In most of the included studies, the attrition rate was either minimal or accounted for during data analysis and, therefore, unlikely to impact the reliability of the data.…”

“…Overall, the median follow-up time among the included studies was 12 weeks (range: 1-48 weeks). The disparity in observational period duration between the included studies can be primarily at- (Schneider et al, 2019), whereas survival rate follow-up was only stated as 2 weeks following implant loading with no mention of the loading protocol (Schneider et al, 2018). Similar to other PROM-reporting studies, Smitkarn and coworkers performed a postoperative computed tomography just 2 weeks after, and that marked the end of the study (Smitkarn et al, 2019).…”

“…sCAIP (Figure 5c) showed evidence of significant differences between groups (p > .05). The final set of included studies amounted to 10 RCTs (Arisan et al, 2010;Farley et al, 2013;Fortin et al, 2006;Magrin et al, 2020;Sancho-Puchades et al, 2019;Schneider et al, 2018Schneider et al, , 2019Shen et al, 2015;Smitkarn et al, 2019;Varga et al, 2020;Vercruyssen, Cox, et al, 2014;Vercruyssen, De Laat, et al, 2014;Vercruyssen, van de Wiele, et al, 2014;Younes et al, 2018). Qualitative data analysis pertaining to the included studies was conducted and, when feasible, the reported data were pooled for the conduction of quantitative analyses.…”

Three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional printing for plastic preparation of medical interventions

“…Recent meta-analyses of RCT on treatment of tibial plateau andpilonfracturesshowedsignificantadvantages of 3D printing-assisted surgery in terms of operation time, blood loss, postoperative functional score, postoperative pain, rate of excellent and good outcome, and rate of anatomic reduction compared to conventional techniques [2,41]. On the other hand, a group of Swiss dental surgeons who conducted an RCT comparing conventional versus computer-aided planning and 3D printing-assisted placement of implants seems hesitant as to whether the observed gain in accuracy and precision would justify the rise of 20-31% in overall economic costs [31,32].…”