Fully Guided Versus Half-Guided and Freehand Implant Placement: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Gargallo‐Albiol, Jordi; Barootchi, Shayan; Marqués-Guasch, Jordi; Wang, Hom‐Lay

doi:10.11607/jomi.7942

Cited by 46 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The standard deviations reported in this study (±1.13 • angular deviation, ±0.49 mm linear deviation at shoulder point and ± 0.54 mm linear deviation at apex point) confirm that a 2-mm margin of safety needs to be applied when implant position is planned, as reported in the previously published systematic review by Thamaseb et al [9], in order to avoid contacts or injuries to near anatomical structures. The computer-guided assisted implant insertion provided a more comprehensive and reliable treatment approach, enhancing clinical and aesthetic patient-related outcomes when compared to the free-hand surgery [53]. A recent systematic review by Tattan et al [54] reported significantly lower angular, coronal and apical deviation values for implants placed by means of static-computer-guided surgery compared to free-hand implant placement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sleeves and the reducers are positioned above the implant recipient site, influencing the overall drill pathway from the insertion to the apex points. Static computer-assisted implant positioning is often associated with a flapless surgery, reducing surgical trauma and consequently postoperative pain and swelling, and patient's discomfort [53,55]. In the included studies, all the 1556 implants were placed flapless.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Flapless Implant Placement by Means of Mucosa-Supported Templates in Complete-Arch Restorations: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current scientific literature regarding the accuracy of fully guided flapless implant positioning for complete-arch rehabilitations in edentulous patients and to assess if there was any statistically significant correlation between linear deviation at shoulder point, at apex point and angular deviation. The electronic and manual literature search of clinical studies was carried out using specified indexing terms. A total of 13 studies were eligible for qualitative analysis and 277 edentulous patients were rehabilitated with 1556 implants patients by means of fully guided mucosa-supported template-assisted flapless surgery. Angular deviation was 3.42° (95% CI 2.82–4.03), linear deviation at shoulder point 1.23 mm (95% CI 0.97–1.49) and linear deviation at apex point 1.46 mm (95% CI 1.17–1.74). No statistically significant correlations were found between the linear and angular deviations. A statistically significant correlation was found between the two linear deviations (correlation coefficient 0.91) that can be summarized by the regression equation y = 0.03080 + 0.8254x. Computer-assisted flapless implant placement by means of mucosa-supported templates in complete arch restorations can be considered a reliable and predictable treatment choice despite the potential effects that flapless approach could bring to the overall treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Flapless Implant Placement by Means of Mucosa-Supported Templates in Complete-Arch Restorations: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a systematic review comparing the accuracy of different types of implant placement through meta-analysis, Gargallo-Albiol et al [ 26 ] concluded that for sCAIS, the fully guided implant placement had the highest accuracy, followed by the half-guided placement, whereas the freehand implant placement had the least accuracy. Similar results for the fully guided vs. partially guided implant placement were reported in other systematic reviews [ 24 , 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Dental Surface Image Registration and Fiducial Marker Registration: An In Vivo Accuracy Study of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery

Han¹,

Lin

Fan

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the accuracy of static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) planned through dental surface image registration and fiducial marker registration. Stone models of 30 patients were converted into digital dental casts by using a desktop scanner. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed and superimposed to the digital dental casts with two methods: matching the dental surface images or matching the fiducial markers on a stereolithographic radiographic template. Following the implant planning, stereolithographic surgical guides were fabricated, and 56 fully guided implants were inserted by the same doctor. Deviations between planned and inserted implants were measured and compared using postoperative CBCT images. After adjustment for other potential influencing factors, compared with the fiducial marker registration group, significantly larger mean lateral deviations were noted in the dental surface registration group at both the implant platform and apex (p = 0.0188 and 0.0371, respectively). However, the mean lateral deviations for the dental surface registration (0.83 ± 0.51 mm at implant platform and 1.24 ± 0.68 mm at implant apex) were comparable to the literature. In conclusion, our findings indicate that although sCAIS planned using dental surface image registration was not statistically as accurate as that using fiducial marker registration, its accuracy was satisfactory for clinical use.

show abstract

“…Gargallo-albiol et al 289 reported on a meta-analysis (10 randomized trials) comparing the accuracy of fully guided versus half-guided and fully guided versus freehand implant placement. Accuracy of implant placement was defined as linear and angular errors measured at coronal or apical aspects of the implant.…”

Section: Implant Dentistrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results demonstrated that both sCAIP and dCAIP resulted in similar accuracy. Outcomes of the previous 5 articles [288][289][290][291][292] clearly demonstrated that guided surgical approaches should be considered in clinical situations where implant placement accuracy is paramount.…”

Section: Implant Dentistrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Cagna

Donovan

McKee³

et al. 2021

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fully Guided Versus Half-Guided and Freehand Implant Placement: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Flapless Implant Placement by Means of Mucosa-Supported Templates in Complete-Arch Restorations: A Systematic Review

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Flapless Implant Placement by Means of Mucosa-Supported Templates in Complete-Arch Restorations: A Systematic Review

Comparison of Dental Surface Image Registration and Fiducial Marker Registration: An In Vivo Accuracy Study of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About