Influence of surgeon experience on implant placement in guided surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

ABSTRACT

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Guided surgical techniques in implant dentistry use virtual planning to accurately position implants. Understanding the effect of a surgeon's experience on guided surgery is essential to ensure successful outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials was to evaluate the influence of a surgeon's experience on the accuracy of implant positioning in guided surgery for completely or partially edentulous patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SciELO, and nonpeer-reviewed literature databases. Studies that met the population, intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) strategy were included a completely or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible, guided surgery performed by experienced and inexperienced surgeons, and assessing implant positioning accuracy. A random-effects meta-analysis with a 95% confidence interval was conducted using Stata 15.1. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2), and evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022302288). RESULTS: Three articles from 2017 to 2020 encompassing 43 participants (22 men and 21 women) with a mean age of 61.2 years and a total of 150 implants were included. No significant difference was found between experienced and inexperienced surgeons in terms of angular, cervical, or apical deviations of the implants (95% confidence interval, P<.05). The difference between surgeons regarding positioning accuracy was less than 0.01 degrees for angular deviation, 0.35 mm for apical deviation, and 0.16 mm for cervical deviation. Low heterogeneity was observed for angular deviations (Q P=.021, I2=34%, and t2<.001) and cervical deviations (Q P=.18, I2=45%, and t2=.064). High heterogeneity was observed for apical deviations (Q P<.001, I2=87% and t2=.522). The overall bias risk was moderate, with the evidence certainty ranging from low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: In guided surgery, the surgeon's experience did not significantly impact the occurrence of deviations in implant positioning.