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.
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.