Premium
Does a fully digital workflow improve the accuracy of computer‐assisted implant surgery in partially edentulous patients? A systematic review of clinical trials
Author(s) -
Siqueira Rafael,
Chen Zhaozhao,
Galli Matthew,
Saleh Islam,
Wang HomLay,
Chan HsunLiang
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12937
Subject(s) - medicine , workflow , coronal plane , absolute deviation , implant , standard deviation , clinical trial , randomized controlled trial , dentistry , surgery , computer science , radiology , mathematics , statistics , database , pathology
Background Accurate implant placement is essential in reducing post‐treatment complications and in ensuring a successful treatment outcome. Purpose To compare the accuracy of fully‐guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery (s‐CAIS) using partially‐ and fully‐digital workflows. Materials and methods Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the accuracy of fully‐guided s‐CAIS procedures utilizing tooth‐supported guides. Quantitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of partially‐ and fully‐digital workflows, and survival rates and complications were qualitatively analyzed. Results Thirteen studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 7 prospective clinical studies, were selected for quantitative and qualitative synthesis. A total of 669 implants in 325 patients using s‐CAIS were available for review. Meta‐analysis of the accuracy revealed a total mean angular deviation of 2.68° (95% CI: 2.32°‐3.03°); mean global coronal deviation of 1.03 mm (95% CI: 0.88‐1.18 mm); mean global apical deviation of 1.33 mm (95% CI: 1.17‐1.50 mm); and mean depth deviation of 0.59 mm (95% CI: 0.46‐0.70 mm). Minimal differences were found between the two different workflows. Few complications were reported, and survival rates were between 97.8% to 100% (range of follow‐up: 12 to 24 months) in the available studies. Conclusion Similar accuracy is obtained when implants are placed in partially edentulous patients using fully‐guided s‐CAIS, independently of the workflow utilized.