Shi-Min Wei1, Yu Zhu1, Jian-Xu Wei1, Chu-Nan Zhang1, Jun-Yu Shi1, Hong-Chang Lai1. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillo-facial Implantology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology & Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search up to March 2020 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial to identify studies using dynamic navigation in implant surgery, and additional manual search was performed as well. Clinical trials and model studies were selected. The primary outcome was accuracy. A single-arm meta-analysis of continuous data was conducted. Meta-regression was utilized for comparison on study design, guidance method, jaw, and systems. RESULTS: Ten studies, four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and six prospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1,298 drillings and implants were evaluated. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (five clinical trials and five model studies) revealed average global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and angular deviation were 1.02 mm, 95% CI (0.83, 1.21), 1.33 mm, 95% CI (0.98, 1.67), and 3.59°, 95% CI (2.09, 5.09). Meta-regression shown no difference between model studies and clinical trials (p = .295, 0.336, 0.185), drilling holes and implant (p = .36, 0.279, 0.695), maxilla and mandible (p = .875, 0.632, 0.281), and five different systems (p = .762, 0.342, 0.336). CONCLUSION: Accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery reaches a clinically acceptable range and has potential in clinical usage, but more patient-centered outcomes and socio-economic benefits should be reported.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search up to March 2020 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial to identify studies using dynamic navigation in implant surgery, and additional manual search was performed as well. Clinical trials and model studies were selected. The primary outcome was accuracy. A single-arm meta-analysis of continuous data was conducted. Meta-regression was utilized for comparison on study design, guidance method, jaw, and systems. RESULTS: Ten studies, four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and six prospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1,298 drillings and implants were evaluated. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (five clinical trials and five model studies) revealed average global platform deviation, global apex deviation, and angular deviation were 1.02 mm, 95% CI (0.83, 1.21), 1.33 mm, 95% CI (0.98, 1.67), and 3.59°, 95% CI (2.09, 5.09). Meta-regression shown no difference between model studies and clinical trials (p = .295, 0.336, 0.185), drilling holes and implant (p = .36, 0.279, 0.695), maxilla and mandible (p = .875, 0.632, 0.281), and five different systems (p = .762, 0.342, 0.336). CONCLUSION: Accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery reaches a clinically acceptable range and has potential in clinical usage, but more patient-centered outcomes and socio-economic benefits should be reported.
Authors: Alessandro Pozzi; Lorenzo Arcuri; Paolo Carosi; Alessandra Nardi; Joseph Kan Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 5.021
Authors: Cornelia Edelmann; Martin Wetzel; Anne Knipper; Ralph G Luthardt; Sigmar Schnutenhaus Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Santiago Ochandiano; David García-Mato; Alba Gonzalez-Alvarez; Rafael Moreta-Martinez; Manuel Tousidonis; Carlos Navarro-Cuellar; Ignacio Navarro-Cuellar; José Ignacio Salmerón; Javier Pascau Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 6.244