Abstract
Abstract
Background
Dental implants are a common restorative method used to replace missing teeth. Implant placement techniques guided by three-dimensional imaging and navigation are becoming more widely available.
Objective
The present review focused on the following questions: 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of 2-D versus 3-D imaging in dental implantology? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of freehand implant placement in comparison with navigation-guided implant placement?
Methods
A systematic review was performed, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The following libraries were searched for relevant literature: PubMed, Embase, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF) Online, and the Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SiGN) checklist. A total of 70 studies were included after screening, and the evidence from these was gathered for review.
Results
Three-dimensional imaging is advantageous in terms of image quality, and it provides a distortion-free evaluation of the implant site. However, it is also associated with higher costs and increased radiation exposure. Dynamic and static navigation are equal in accuracy and are both more accurate compared with the freehand method. No benefit in terms of implant survival could be demonstrated within the first 5 years for any specific method.
Discussion
A panoramic X-ray with a reference body often provides sufficient imaging and is the primary method for two-dimensional imaging. Cone beam computed tomography with low-dose protocol settings should be used if three-dimensional imaging is needed. Navigational support should be considered in the event of especially complex cases.
Conclusion
The guidance technique used for implant placement should be decided on an individual basis. With the increasing availability of three-dimensional imaging, there should also be an increase in awareness of radiation exposure.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference71 articles.
1. Jensen C, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Schepers R, Cune MS. Comparing two diagnostic procedures in planning dental implants to support a mandibular free-ending removable partial denture. Clin Implant Dentistry Relat Res. 2016;18(4):678–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12359.
2. Pertl L, Gashi-Cenkoglu B, Reichmann J, Jakse N, Pertl C. Preoperative assessment of the mandibular canal in implant surgery: comparison of rotational panoramic radiography (OPG), computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for preoperative assessment in implant surgery. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013;6(1):73–80.
3. Sahota J, Bhatia A, Gupta M, Singh V, Soni J, Soni R. Reliability of orthopantomography and cone-beam computed tomography in presurgical implant planning: a clinical study. J Contemp Dental Pract. 2017;18(8):665–9. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2103.
4. Chen S, Ou Q, Lin X, Wang Y. Comparison between a computer-aided surgical template and the free-hand method: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implant Dent. 2019;28(6):578–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000915.
5. https://www.sign.ac.uk/checklists-and-notes 2020.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献