Depth distortion and angular deviation of a fully guided tooth-supported static surgical guide in a partially edentulous patient: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
accuracy
computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing
dental implants
digital workflow
guided implant surgery
Journal
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
ISSN: 1532-849X
Titre abrégé: J Prosthodont
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9301275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jul 2024
11 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
30
01
2024
accepted:
28
05
2024
medline:
12
7
2024
pubmed:
12
7
2024
entrez:
12
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the depth distortion and angular deviation of fully-guided tooth-supported static surgical guides (FTSG) in partially edentulous arches compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question was: "In partially edentulous arches, what are the depth distortion and angular deviation of FTSG compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand?" The search strategy involved four main electronic databases, and an additional manual search was completed in November 2023 by following an established search strategy. Initial inclusion was based on titles and abstracts, followed by a detailed review of selected studies, and clinical studies that evaluated the angular deviations or depth distortion in FTSG in partial arches, compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand, were included. In FTSG, two surgical approaches were compared: open flap and flapless techniques, and two digital methods were assessed for surgical guide design with fiducial markers or dental surfaces. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) system. In addition, a single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the angular deviation of freehand and FTSG. Ten studies, published between 2018 and 2023, met the eligibility criteria. Among them, 10 studies reported angular deviations ranging from -0.32° to 4.96° for FTSG. Regarding FTSG surgical approaches, seven studies examined the open flap technique for FTSG, reporting mean angular deviations ranging from 2.03° to 4.23°, and four studies evaluated flapless FTSG, reporting angular deviations ranging from -0.32° to 3.38°. Six studies assessed the freehand surgical approach, reporting angular deviations ranging from 1.40° to 7.36°. The mean depth distortion ranged between 0.19 mm to 2.05 mm for open flap FTSG, and between 0.15 mm to 0.45 mm for flapless FTSG. For partially guided surgical guides, two studies reported angular deviations ranging from 0.59° to 3.44°. Seven studies were eligible for meta-analysis, focusing on the FTSG in open flap technique, with high heterogeneity (I In partially edentulous arches, FTSG systems exhibited less angular deviation than freehand and partially guided surgical guides. Flapless surgical approaches were associated with reduced angular deviation and depth distortion, suggesting a potential preference for the FTSG method in these procedures.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists.
Références
Lin CC, Wu CZ, Huang MS, Huang CF, Cheng HC, Wang DP. Fully digital workflow for planning static guided implant surgery: a prospective accuracy study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):980.
Bencharit S, Staffen A, Yeung M, Whitley D, Laskin DM, Deeb GR. In vivo tooth‐supported implant surgical guides fabricated with desktop stereolithographic printers: fully guided surgery is more accurate than partially guided surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(7):1431–1439.
Bathija A, Papaspyridakos P, Finkelman M, Kim Y, Kang K, De Souza AB. Accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery (S‐CAIS) using CAD‐CAM surgical templates fabricated from different additive manufacturing technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2023:S0022‐3913(23)00191‐9.
Derksen W, Wismeijer D, Flügge T, Hassan B, Tahmaseb A. The accuracy of computer‐guided implant surgery with tooth‐supported, digitally designed drill guides based on CBCT and intraoral scanning. A prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(10):1005–1015.
Fang Y, An X, Jeong SM, Choi BH. Accuracy of computer‐guided implant placement in anterior regions. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(5):836–842.
Lou F, Rao P, Zhang M, Luo S, Lu S, Xiao J. Accuracy evaluation of partially guided and fully guided templates applied to implant surgery of anterior teeth: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(1):117–130.
Ngamprasertkit C, Aunmeungthong W, Khongkhunthian P. The implant position accuracy between using only surgical drill guide and surgical drill guide with implant guide in fully digital workflow: a randomized clinical trial. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;26(2):229–237.
Smitkarn P, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. The accuracy of single‐tooth implants placed using fully digital‐guided surgery and freehand implant surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(9):949–957.
Varga E Jr, Antal M, Major L, Kiscsatári R, Braunitzer G, Piffkó J. Guidance means accuracy: a randomized clinical trial on freehand versus guided dental implantation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(5):417–430.
Lan D, Luo Y, Qu Y, Man Y. The three‐dimensional stability and accuracy of 3D printing surgical templates: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2024;144:104936.
Tahir N, Abduo J. An in vitro evaluation of the effect of 3D printing orientation on the accuracy of implant surgical templates fabricated by desktop printer. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(9):791–798.
Schneider D, Sancho‐Puchades M, Mir‐Marí J, Mühlemann S, Jung R, Hämmerle C. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional and computer‐assisted implant planning and placement in partially edentulous patients. Part 4: accuracy of implant placement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019;39(4):e111–e122.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.
Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. ROB II: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2019;366:14898.
Tallarico M, Martinolli M, Kim Y, Cocchi F, Meloni SM, Alushi A, et al. Accuracy of computer‐assisted template‐based implant placement using two different surgical templates designed with or without metallic sleeves: a randomized controlled trial. Dent J (Basel). 2019;7(2):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7020041
Huang L, Liu L, Yang S, Khadka P, Zhang S. Evaluation of the accuracy of implant placement by using implant positional guide versus freehand: a prospective clinical study. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729‐023‐00512‐z
Kiatkroekkrai P, Takolpuckdee C, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. Accuracy of implant position when placed using static computer‐assisted implant surgical guides manufactured with two different optical scanning techniques: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(3):377–383.
Skjerven H, Riis UH, Herlofsson BB, Ellingsen JE. In vivo accuracy of implant placement using a full digital planning modality and stereolithographic guides. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(1):124–132.
Lemos CAA, Verri FR, Cruz RS, Gomes JML, Dos Santos DM, Goiato MC, et al. Comparison between flapless and open‐flap implant placement: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49(9):1220–1231.
Schulz MC, Hofmann F, Range U, Lauer G, Haim D. Pilot‐drill guided vs. full‐guided implant insertion in artificial mandibles‐a prospective laboratory study in fifth‐year dental students. Int J Implant Dent. 2019;5(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729‐019‐0176‐4
Choi M, Romberg E, Driscoll CF. Effects of varied dimensions of surgical guides on implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(5):463–469.
Kernen F, Kramer J, Wanner L, Wismeijer D, Nelson K, Flügge T. A review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery—data import and visualization, drill guide design and manufacturing. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):251.
Al‐Ekrish AA. Comparative study of the accuracy of CBCT implant site measurements using different software programs. Saudi Dent J. 2021;33(6):355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.07.003
Singthong W, Serichetaphongse P, Chengprapakorn W. A randomized clinical trial on the accuracy of guided implant surgery between two implant‐planning programs used by inexperienced operators. J Prosthet Dent. 2022:S0022‐3913(22)00104‐4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.038
Afrashtehfar KI, Jurado CA, Moshaverinia A. Dynamic navigation may be used for most implant surgery scenarios due to its satisfactory accuracy. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022;22(4):101797.
Aghaloo T, Hadaya D, Schoenbaum TR, Pratt L, Favagehi M. Guided and navigation implant surgery: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023;38(suppl):7–15.
Afrashtehfar KI. Conventional freehand, dynamic navigation and static guided implant surgery produce similar short‐term patient‐reported outcome measures and experiences [published correction appears in Evid Based Dent. 2022 Mar;23(1):5]. Evid Based Dent. 2021;22(4):143–145.
Mediavilla Guzmán A, Riad Deglow E, Zubizarreta‐Macho Á, Agustín‐Panadero R, Hernández Montero S. Accuracy of computer‐aided dynamic navigation compared to computer‐aided static navigation for dental implant placement: an in vitro study. J Clin Med. 2019;8(12):2123.
Kaewsiri D, Panmekiate S, Subbalekha K, Mattheos N, Pimkhaokham A. The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer‐assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(6):505–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13435
Zhou M, Zhou H, Li SY, Zhu YB, Geng YM. Comparison of the accuracy of dental implant placement using static and dynamic computer‐assisted systems: an in vitro study. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;122(4):343–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2020.11.008
Lanis A, Peña‐Cardelles JF, Negreiros WM, Hamilton A, Gallucci GO. Impact of digital technologies on implant surgery in fully edentulous patients: a scoping review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14268
Elliott T, Hamilton A, Griseto N, Gallucci GO. Additively manufactured surgical implant guides: a review. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(S1):38–46.
Piedra‐Cascón W, Krishnamurthy VR, Att W, Revilla‐León M. 3D printing parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post‐processing procedures of vat‐polymerization additive manufacturing technologies: a narrative review. J Dent. 2021;109:103630.