Does a fully digital workflow improve the accuracy of computer-assisted implant surgery in partially edentulous patients? A systematic review of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Accurate implant placement is essential in reducing post-treatment complications and in ensuring a successful treatment outcome.

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of fully-guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) using partially- and fully-digital workflows.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the accuracy of fully-guided s-CAIS procedures utilizing tooth-supported guides. Quantitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of partially- and fully-digital workflows, and survival rates and complications were qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 7 prospective clinical studies, were selected for quantitative and qualitative synthesis. A total of 669 implants in 325 patients using s-CAIS were available for review. Meta-analysis of the accuracy revealed a total mean angular deviation of 2.68° (95% CI: 2.32°-3.03°); mean global coronal deviation of 1.03 mm (95% CI: 0.88-1.18 mm); mean global apical deviation of 1.33 mm (95% CI: 1.17-1.50 mm); and mean depth deviation of 0.59 mm (95% CI: 0.46-0.70 mm). Minimal differences were found between the two different workflows. Few complications were reported, and survival rates were between 97.8% to 100% (range of follow-up: 12 to 24 months) in the available studies.

CONCLUSION

Similar accuracy is obtained when implants are placed in partially edentulous patients using fully-guided s-CAIS, independently of the workflow utilized.

The accuracy of computer-guided implant surgery with tooth-supported, digitally designed drill guides based on CBCT and intraoral scanning. A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate computer-guided implant surgery with tooth-supported drill guides based on CBCT scans and intraoral scanning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For partially edentulous patients, a prosthetic and surgical planning was completed in the guided surgery software (coDiagnostiX) and drill guides were 3D-printed accordingly. Three months after implant placement, an intraoral scan of the implant's position was used to evaluate the accuracy of placement using the coDiagnostiX treatment evaluation tool. Deviations were reported in degrees and in distance at implant's entry point and apex. Several risk factors, which might influence the accuracy, were evaluated separately: treated jaw, flap design, prior augmentations, amount of unrestored teeth, crowding, location of implants, cortical interference, and implant's length and diameter.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients received 145 Straumann tissue level implants that were eligible for accuracy analysis. The mean angular deviation was 2.72° ± 1.42. The mean three-dimensional deviation at the implant's entry point was 0.75 mm ± 0.34. At implant's apex, the mean was 1.06 mm ± 0.44. The amount of unrestored teeth (p = .002 & p = .003), the implant's location (p < .001), the implant's length (p = .004), and cortical interference (p = .033) had a significant influence on the accuracy of placement. Implant survival was 99.3% (n = 1 failed implant) at 12 and 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Guided surgery with tooth-supported drill guides made in a digital workflow is a feasible treatment option. However, deviations do occur and the implant's length, location, cortical interference and the amount of unrestored teeth have a significant influence on the accuracy.