ABSTRACT
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare computer-guided (fully guided) and freehand implant placement surgery in terms of marginal bone loss, complications, and implant survival. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019135893). Two independent investigators performed the search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to April 2020 and identified 1508 references. After a detailed review, only four studies were considered eligible. These studies involved a total of 154 patients with 597 dental implants and a mean follow-up period of 2.25 years. There was no difference between computer-guided surgery and freehand surgery in terms of the marginal bone loss (mean difference -0.11mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to 0.04mm; P=0.16), mechanical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-2.04; P=0.72), biological complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.42-5.74; P=0.51), and implant survival rate (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11-2.43; P=0.41). This meta-analysis demonstrated that both computer-guided and freehand surgeries yielded similar results for marginal bone loss, mechanical and biological complications, and implant survival rate.
Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Computers , Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Dental Restoration Failure , HumansABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies comparing implant survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complication rates between narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) used for oral rehabilitation in the anterior region. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until May 2020. A total of 843 implants (484 NDIs and 359 RDIs) were included. No significant difference in implant survival rate (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.03; P=0.34), MBL (standardised mean difference -0.51mm, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.26mm; P=0.19), mechanical complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; P=0.40), or biological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P=0.85) was found between the implant groups. Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that NDIs are an effective alternative to RDIs due to similar survival rates, MBL, and mechanical and biological complication rates. However, future studies are highly encouraged due to the small number of interventional studies on this topic.
