Adrià Jorba-García1, Albert González-Barnadas1,2, Octavi Camps-Font1,2, Rui Figueiredo3,4,5, Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón1,2. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2. IDIBELL Institute, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. ruipfigueiredo@hotmail.com. 4. IDIBELL Institute, Barcelona, Spain. ruipfigueiredo@hotmail.com. 5. Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Campus de Bellvitge, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Pavelló de Govern, 2a Planta, Despatx 2.9, C/Feixa Llarga s/n, E-08907 L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain. ruipfigueiredo@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (dCAIS) systems when used to place dental implants and to compare its accuracy with static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS) systems and freehand implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was made to identify all relevant studies reporting on the accuracy of dCAIS systems for dental implant placement. The following PICO question was developed: "In patients or artificial models, is dental implant placement accuracy higher when dCAIS systems are used in comparison with sCAIS systems or with freehand placement? The main outcome variable was angular deviation between the central axes of the planned and final position of the implant. The data were extracted in descriptive tables, and a meta-analysis of single means was performed in order to estimate the deviations for each variable using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Out of 904 potential articles, the 24 selected assessed 9 different dynamic navigation systems. The mean angular and entry 3D global deviations for clinical studies were 3.68° (95% CI: 3.61 to 3.74; I2 = 99.4%) and 1.03 mm (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04; I2 = 82.4%), respectively. Lower deviation values were reported in in vitro studies (mean angular deviation of 2.01° (95% CI: 1.95 to 2.07; I2 = 99.1%) and mean entry 3D global deviation of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.48 ; I2 = 98.5%). No significant differences were found between the different dCAIS systems. These systems were significantly more accurate than sCAIS systems (mean difference (MD): -0.86°; 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.36) and freehand implant placement (MD: -4.33°; 95% CI: -5.40 to -3.25). CONCLUSION: dCAIS systems allow highly accurate implant placement with a mean angular of less than 4°. However, a 2-mm safety margin should be applied, since deviations of more than 1 mm were observed. dCAIS systems increase the implant placement accuracy when compared with freehand implant placement and also seem to slightly decrease the angular deviation in comparison with sCAIS systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of dCAIS could reduce the rate of complications since it allows a highly accurate implant placement.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (dCAIS) systems when used to place dental implants and to compare its accuracy with static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS) systems and freehand implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was made to identify all relevant studies reporting on the accuracy of dCAIS systems for dental implant placement. The following PICO question was developed: "In patients or artificial models, is dental implant placement accuracy higher when dCAIS systems are used in comparison with sCAIS systems or with freehand placement? The main outcome variable was angular deviation between the central axes of the planned and final position of the implant. The data were extracted in descriptive tables, and a meta-analysis of single means was performed in order to estimate the deviations for each variable using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Out of 904 potential articles, the 24 selected assessed 9 different dynamic navigation systems. The mean angular and entry 3D global deviations for clinical studies were 3.68° (95% CI: 3.61 to 3.74; I2 = 99.4%) and 1.03 mm (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04; I2 = 82.4%), respectively. Lower deviation values were reported in in vitro studies (mean angular deviation of 2.01° (95% CI: 1.95 to 2.07; I2 = 99.1%) and mean entry 3D global deviation of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.48 ; I2 = 98.5%). No significant differences were found between the different dCAIS systems. These systems were significantly more accurate than sCAIS systems (mean difference (MD): -0.86°; 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.36) and freehand implant placement (MD: -4.33°; 95% CI: -5.40 to -3.25). CONCLUSION:dCAIS systems allow highly accurate implant placement with a mean angular of less than 4°. However, a 2-mm safety margin should be applied, since deviations of more than 1 mm were observed. dCAIS systems increase the implant placement accuracy when compared with freehand implant placement and also seem to slightly decrease the angular deviation in comparison with sCAIS systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of dCAIS could reduce the rate of complications since it allows a highly accurate implant placement.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computer-guided implantology; Dental implants; Dynamic computer-assisted surgery; Navigation systems
Authors: Erika Benavides; Hector F Rios; Scott D Ganz; Chang-Hyeon An; Randolph Resnik; Gayle Tieszen Reardon; Steven J Feldman; James K Mah; David Hatcher; Myung-Jin Kim; Dong-Seok Sohn; Ady Palti; Morton L Perel; Kenneth W M Judy; Carl E Misch; Hom-Lay Wang Journal: Implant Dent Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.454
Authors: Maria Eugenia Guerrero; Reinhilde Jacobs; Miet Loubele; Filip Schutyser; Paul Suetens; Daniel van Steenberghe Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2006-02-16 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Ronald E Jung; David Schneider; Jeffrey Ganeles; Daniel Wismeijer; Marcel Zwahlen; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ali Tahmaseb Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Christoph H F Hämmerle; Paul Stone; Ronald E Jung; Theodoros Kapos; Nadine Brodala Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.804
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
Authors: Jan van Hooft; Guido Kielenstijn; Jeroen Liebregts; Frank Baan; Gert Meijer; Jan D'haese; Ewald Bronkhorst; Luc Verhamme Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 4.964