Scholarlink

Objective <p>To assess whether dynamic navigation (dCAIS) has greater accuracy/precision and less discrepancy in parallelism compared to guided (static, sCAIS) and free-hand (FH) surgery in Implantology.</p> Materials and methods <p>A search was conducted across six databases using specific key terms. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective or prospective clinical studies published within the last 10 years (2014–2024) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was employed. The heterogeneity analysis was conducted using Cochran’s Q-test and Higgins’ I<sup>2</sup> statistic.</p> Results <p>Thirteen articles were included. A total of 554 patients and 687 implants were enrolled, with 215 using the FH system, 195 using sCAIS, and 277 using dCAIS. The meta-analysis compared the following: (1) dCAIS vs. sCAIS; (2) dCAIS vs. FH; (3) sCAIS vs. FH. The first group had a mean difference of -0.08&#xa0;mm, with a substantial heterogeneity (I² = 52%) and no statistically significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.08); the second presented a mean difference of -0.48&#xa0;mm, high heterogeneity (I²=89%), and a statistically significant better accuracy for dCAIS than FH (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01); the last comparison found a mean difference of -0.62&#xa0;mm, with a considerable heterogeneity (I²=84%), and sCAIS showing statistically significantly better accuracy than the FH approach (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01).</p> Conclusions <p>Using CAIS (dCAIS or sCAIS) substantially improved accuracy compared to the FH approach, with no statistically significant difference between dCAIS and sCAIS. <b>Clinical relevance</b>: The findings support the use of CAIS for improved implant accuracy and precision compared to FH techniques.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of the accuracy/precision among guided (static), manual, and dynamic navigation in dental implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月10日

查看全文
  • Filipe Castro,
  • Pedro Pereira,
  • Carlos Falcão-Costa,
  • Artur Falcão,
  • Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes,
  • Gustavo Vicentis Oliveira Fernandes,
  • José-Vicente Rios

摘要

Objective

To assess whether dynamic navigation (dCAIS) has greater accuracy/precision and less discrepancy in parallelism compared to guided (static, sCAIS) and free-hand (FH) surgery in Implantology.

Materials and methods

A search was conducted across six databases using specific key terms. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective or prospective clinical studies published within the last 10 years (2014–2024) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was employed. The heterogeneity analysis was conducted using Cochran’s Q-test and Higgins’ I2 statistic.

Results

Thirteen articles were included. A total of 554 patients and 687 implants were enrolled, with 215 using the FH system, 195 using sCAIS, and 277 using dCAIS. The meta-analysis compared the following: (1) dCAIS vs. sCAIS; (2) dCAIS vs. FH; (3) sCAIS vs. FH. The first group had a mean difference of -0.08 mm, with a substantial heterogeneity (I² = 52%) and no statistically significant difference (p = 0.08); the second presented a mean difference of -0.48 mm, high heterogeneity (I²=89%), and a statistically significant better accuracy for dCAIS than FH (p < 0.01); the last comparison found a mean difference of -0.62 mm, with a considerable heterogeneity (I²=84%), and sCAIS showing statistically significantly better accuracy than the FH approach (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Using CAIS (dCAIS or sCAIS) substantially improved accuracy compared to the FH approach, with no statistically significant difference between dCAIS and sCAIS. Clinical relevance: The findings support the use of CAIS for improved implant accuracy and precision compared to FH techniques.