Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Periodontol 2000. 2022 Oct;90(1):197-223. doi: 10.1111/prd.12458. Epub 2022 Aug 4.
Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), either static or dynamic, is well documented to significantly improve the accuracy of implant placement. Whether the increased accuracy leads to a corresponding improvement in clinical outcomes has not yet been systematically investigated. The aim of this critical review was to investigate whether the use of CAIS can lead to reduction of complications as well as improved clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when compared with conventional freehand implant surgery. A comprehensive online search was conducted to identify studies where implants were installed with static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS)or dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery(d-CAIS) or combinations of the two, either compared with conventional free-hand implant placement or not. Seventy-seven studies were finally included in qualitative analysis, while data from three studies assessing postsurgical pain were suitable for a meta-analysis. Only a small number of the available studies were comparative. The current evidence does not suggest any difference with regard to intraoperative complications, immediate postsurgical healing, osseointegration success, and survival of implants placed with CAIS or freehand protocols. Intraoperative and early healing events as reported by patients in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) did not differ significantly between CAIS used with flap elevation and conventional implant placement. There is limited evidence that increased accuracy of placement with CAIS is correlated with superior esthetic outcomes. Use of CAIS does not significantly reduce the length of surgeries in cases of single implants and partially edentulous patients, although there appears to be a more favorable impact in fully edentulous patients. Although CAIS alone does not seem to improve healing and the clinical and PRO, to the extent that it can increase the utilization of flapless surgery and predictability of immediacy protocols, its use may indirectly lead to substantial improvements in all of the above parameters.
计算机辅助种植手术(CAIS),无论是静态还是动态,都有大量文献证明可显著提高种植体植入的准确性。然而,增加的准确性是否会导致临床结果的相应改善尚未得到系统研究。本综述的目的是调查与传统徒手种植手术相比,使用 CAIS 是否可以减少并发症,并改善临床和患者报告的结果(PROs)。我们进行了全面的在线检索,以确定使用静态计算机辅助种植手术(s-CAIS)或动态计算机辅助种植手术(d-CAIS)或两者结合,与传统徒手种植放置或不与传统徒手种植放置进行比较的研究。最终有 77 项研究纳入定性分析,而评估术后疼痛的三项研究的数据适合进行荟萃分析。只有少数可用的研究具有可比性。目前的证据表明,CAIS 或徒手方案植入的术中并发症、即刻术后愈合、骨整合成功率和种植体存活率方面没有差异。随机临床试验(RCTs)中患者报告的术中及早期愈合事件在使用 flap elevation 和传统种植体植入的 CAIS 之间没有显著差异。有限的证据表明,CAIS 放置的准确性提高与更好的美学效果相关。在单颗种植体和部分无牙颌患者中,CAIS 的使用并未显著缩短手术时间,但在全口无牙颌患者中似乎有更有利的影响。虽然 CAIS 本身似乎不会改善愈合和临床及 PRO,但由于它可以增加无瓣手术的应用和即刻方案的可预测性,因此其使用可能会间接地导致所有上述参数的显著改善。