Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-Guided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cadaver, Clinical, and In Vitro Studies

Bover-Ramos, Fernando; Viña-Almunia, José; Cervera-Ballester, Juan; Peñarrocha‐Diago, Miguel; García-Mira, Berta

doi:10.11607/jomi.5556

Cited by 227 publications

(250 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

216

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In that sense, it is not surprising to expect higher accuracy reported in in vitro studies, something that can also be reflected in as shown in several systematic reviews. The present results are consistent with several systematic reviews and meta‐analyses which reported the accuracy of CAIS systems in clinical studies, where the deviation was less than 1.22 mm and 1.45 mm at platform and apex, respectively, and less than 4.06 degrees for angular deviation (Bover‐Ramos, Vina‐Almunia, Cervera‐Ballester, Penarrocha‐Diago, & Garcia‐Mira, ; Jung et al, ; Sicilia, Botticelli, & Working, ; Tahmaseb, Wismeijer, Coucke, & Derksen, ; Tahmaseb, Wu, Wismeijer, Coucke, & Evans, ; Van Assche et al, ). Nevertheless, such systematic reviews contain a diversity of study designs, surgical protocols, and operators while utilizing different CAIS and implant systems.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial

Kaewsiri

Panmekiate

Subbalekha

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

117

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this RCT was to compare the accuracy of implant placement between static and dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery (CAIS) systems in single tooth space. Materials and methods A total of 60 patients in need of a single implant were randomly assigned to two CAIS groups (Static n = 30, Dynamic n = 30) and implants were placed by one surgeon. Preoperative CBCT was transferred to implant planning software to plan the optimal implant position. Implants were placed using either stereolithographic guide template (Static CAIS) or implant navigation system (Dynamic CAIS). Postoperative CBCT was imported to implant planning software, and deviation analysis with the planned position was performed. Primary outcomes were the deviation measurements at implant platform, apex, and angle of placement. Secondary outcome was the distribution of the implant deviation into each 3D direction. Results The mean deviation at implant platform and implant apex in the static CAIS group was 0.97 ± 0.44 mm and 1.28 ± 0.46 mm, while that in the dynamic CAIS group was 1.05 ± 0.44 mm and 1.29 ± 0.50 mm, respectively. The angular deviation in static and dynamic CAIS group was 2.84 ± 1.71 degrees and 3.06 ± 1.37 degrees. None of the above differences between the two groups reached statistical significance. The deviation of implants toward the mesial direction in dynamic CAIS group was significantly higher than that of the static CAIS (p = 0.032). Conclusions Implant placement accuracy in single tooth space using dynamic CAIS appear to be the same to that of static CAIS. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20180826001).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial

Kaewsiri

Panmekiate

Subbalekha

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

117

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery can be influenced by each step from image acquisition to implant insertion. In recent years, different meta-analyses (Bover-Ramos, Viña-Almunia, Cervera-Ballester, Peñarrocha-Diago, & García-Mira, 2018;Jung et al, 2009;Schneider, Marquardt, Zwahlen, & Jung, 2009;Van Assche et al, 2012) have reported its deviations: global deviation at both entry (mean: 0.88-1.44 mm) and apex (mean: 1.11-1.91 mm); angular deviation (mean: 2.39-4.30°); and depth deviation (mean: 0.47-0.83 mm). Similarly, the accuracy of mental navigation has also been reported in fully (Gillot et al, 2014;Vercruyssen et al, 2015) or partially edentulous sites (Noharet et al, 2014;Van de Velde, Glor, & Bruyn, 2008;Vermeulen, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of flapless immediate implant placement in anterior maxilla using computer‐assisted versus freehand surgery: A cadaver study

Chen

Sinjab

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the accuracy of computer‐guided surgery and freehand surgery on flapless immediate implant placement (IIP) in the anterior maxilla. Material and Methods In this split‐mouth design, 24 maxillary incisors in eight human cadaver heads were randomly divided into two groups: computer‐guided surgery (n = 12) and freehand surgery (n = 12). Preoperatively, cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were acquired, and all implants were planned with a software (Blue Sky Plan3). Then, two types of surgeries were performed. To assess any differences in position, the postoperative CBCT was subsequently matched with the preoperative planning. For all the implants, the angular, global, depth, bucco‐lingual, and mesio‐distal deviations between the virtual and actual implant positions were measured. Results A significant lower mean angular deviation (3.11 ± 1.55°, range: 0.66–4.95, p = 0.002) and the global deviation at both coronal (0.85 ± 0.38 mm, range: 0.42–1.51, p = 0.004) and apical levels (0.93 ± 0.34 mm, range: 0.64–1.72, p < 0.001) were observed in the guided group when compared to the freehand group (6.78 ± 3.31°, range: 3.08–14.98; 1.43 ± 0.49 mm, range: 0.65–2.31, and 2.2 ± 0.79 mm, range: 1.01–4.02). However, the accuracy of these two approaches was similar for the depth (p = 0.366). In the buccal direction, the mean deviations of both groups showed a general tendency of implants to be positioned facially, occurring more in implants of the freehand group. Conclusion In flapless IIP, computer‐guided surgery showed superior accuracy than freehand surgery in transferring the implant position from the planning. However, even with the help of a guide, the final fixture position tends to shift toward a facial direction.

show abstract

“…The development of more advanced implant prosthetic and surgical techniques during the last several years has allowed the rehabilitation of edentulous patients in the most challenging clinical scenarios . Severely atrophic ridges still represent a major challenge for implant placement, particularly in the lower jaw …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone heat generated using conventional implant drills versus piezosurgery unit during apical cortical plate perforation

Lajolo

Valente

Romandini

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accuracy of Implant Placement with Computer-Guided Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cadaver, Clinical, and In Vitro Studies

Cited by 227 publications

References 0 publications

The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial

The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial

Accuracy of flapless immediate implant placement in anterior maxilla using computer‐assisted versus freehand surgery: A cadaver study

Bone heat generated using conventional implant drills versus piezosurgery unit during apical cortical plate perforation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About