The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement With Different Methods of Computer‐Assisted Implant Surgery: A Network Meta‐Analysis of Clinical Studies

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjectiveComputer‐assisted implant surgery (CAIS) has been introduced as a tool to aid in reaching a more accurate implant position. The aim of this network meta‐analysis was to compare all the available CAIS techniques and obtain collective evidence on the method that offers the highest accuracy compared to freehand implant placement.Materials and MethodsDatabase search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library in addition to extensive search in the gray literature and related systematic reviews, aiming to find clinical studies that compared any CAIS technique with another, or with freehand implant placement. The outcomes evaluated were angle, platform, and apex deviation. The search process ended on March 18, 2024.ResultsThirty‐three studies were included. All CAIS techniques (static with partial or full guidance, dynamic with partial or full guidance, the combination of static and dynamic CAIS) showed significantly less deviation than freehand implant placement, except for the static CAIS with guidance for the pilot drill only. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS ranked best among all other methods. Based on the GRADE system, the certainty of evidence in the outcomes of the meta‐analysis was judged as low or moderate.ConclusionsThe current study demonstrates that computer‐assisted implant surgery provides significantly higher accuracy in implant placement, with the combination of static and dynamic CAIS being the most precise. Nevertheless, future studies are needed, considering the different types, locations, and extents of edentulism in the analyzed investigations, as well as the necessity of obtaining stronger evidence.Trial RegistrationPROSPERIO number: CRD42023482030