Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

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 ad...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research Vol. 32; no. 4; pp. 383 - 393
Main Authors: Wei, Shi‐Min, Zhu, Yu, Wei, Jian‐Xu, Zhang, Chu‐Nan, Shi, Jun‐Yu, Lai, Hong‐Chang
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2021
Subjects:
Accuracy
Clinical trials
Computer-Aided Design
computer‐assisted surgery
Dental Implantation, Endosseous
Dental Implants
Dental surgery
Deviation
Drilling
dynamic navigation
Humans
image‐guided surgery
Jaw
Mandible
Mandible - surgery
Maxilla
Meta-analysis
Model accuracy
Model testing
Surgery
Surgery, Computer-Assisted
tooth implants
image-guided surgery
computer-assisted surgery
dental implants
dynamic navigation
tooth implants
ISSN:0905-7161, 1600-0501, 1600-0501
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.13719