Evidence Hub

Accuracy of dynamic navigation in implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shi-min Wei, Yu Zhu, Jian-Xu Wei, Chu-Nan Zhang, Jun-Yu Shi, Hong-Chang Lai

Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2021

150 citations

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 1298 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, CI: 95% [0.83, 1.21], 1.33 mm, CI: 95% [0.98, 1.67], and 3.59°, CI: 95% [2.09, 5.09]. Meta-regression shown no difference between model studies and clinical trials (p=0.295, 0.336, 0.185), drilling holes and implant (p =0.36, 0.279, 0.695), maxilla and mandible (p =0.875, 0.632, 0.281) and five different systems (p =0.762, 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.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free