AIM: To assess the accuracy of static computer-guided implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information on the accuracy of static computer-guided implant placement and meta-regression analyses were performed to summarize and analyse the overall accuracy. The latter included a search for correlations between factors such as: support (teeth/mucosa/bone), number of templates, use of fixation pins, jaw, template production, guiding system, guided implant placement. RESULTS: Nineteen accuracy studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta analysis revealed a mean error of 0.99 mm (ranging from 0 to 6.5 mm) at the entry point and of 1.24 mm (ranging from 0 to 6.9 mm) at the apex. The mean angular deviation was 3.81° (ranging from 0 to 24.9°). Significant differences for all deviation parameters was found for implant-guided placement compared to placement without guidance. Number of templates used was significant, influencing the apical and angular deviation in favour for the single template. Study design and jaw location had no significant effect. Less deviation was found when more fixation pins were used (significant for entry). CONCLUSION: Computer-guided implant placement can be accurate, but significant deviations have to be taken into account. Randomized studies are needed to analyse the impact of individual parameters in order to allow optimization of this technique. Moreover, a clear overview on indications and benefits would help the clinicians to find the right candidates.
AIM: To assess the accuracy of static computer-guided implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information on the accuracy of static computer-guided implant placement and meta-regression analyses were performed to summarize and analyse the overall accuracy. The latter included a search for correlations between factors such as: support (teeth/mucosa/bone), number of templates, use of fixation pins, jaw, template production, guiding system, guided implant placement. RESULTS: Nineteen accuracy studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta analysis revealed a mean error of 0.99 mm (ranging from 0 to 6.5 mm) at the entry point and of 1.24 mm (ranging from 0 to 6.9 mm) at the apex. The mean angular deviation was 3.81° (ranging from 0 to 24.9°). Significant differences for all deviation parameters was found for implant-guided placement compared to placement without guidance. Number of templates used was significant, influencing the apical and angular deviation in favour for the single template. Study design and jaw location had no significant effect. Less deviation was found when more fixation pins were used (significant for entry). CONCLUSION: Computer-guided implant placement can be accurate, but significant deviations have to be taken into account. Randomized studies are needed to analyse the impact of individual parameters in order to allow optimization of this technique. Moreover, a clear overview on indications and benefits would help the clinicians to find the right candidates.
Authors: Uta Scherer; Marcus Stoetzer; Martin Ruecker; Nils-Claudius Gellrich; Constantin von See Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 3.573