Banerjee Saurav, Debnath Anasua, Paul Priyanjali, Banerjee Tridib Nath
Department of Prosthodontics, Dr. R. Ahmed Dental College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2025 Jan 1;25(1):22-29. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_369_24. Epub 2025 Jan 3.
When compared to conventional freehand procedures, the development of computer-assisted techniques in dental implant insertion surgery has significantly changed traditional practices, bringing about a movement toward improved precision and predictability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of traditional freehand methods versus static-dynamic computer-assisted dental implant placement procedures in terms of accuracy and precision.
This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, screening 438 articles from databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized control trials, case controls and retrospective case studies, focusing on platform deviation, angular deviation, and apical deviation in dynamic, static, and freehand surgeries. Eleven studies were selected for a review, with nine studies included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was analyzed using appropriate statistical models to ensure robust findings and reliability of the results.
The meta-analysis included nine studies comparing dental implant accuracy across dynamic, static, and freehand placement techniques. Dynamic systems showed superior accuracy, with platform deviations of 0.64-1.73 mm, angular deviations of 2.49°-5.75°, and apical deviations of 0.89-1.86 mm. Static systems showed slightly greater variability, with platform deviations of 0.97-2.34 mm and angular deviations of 2.2°-4.98°. Freehand techniques demonstrated the highest deviations, with platform deviations up to 3.48 mm and angular deviations up to 10.09°. Prediction intervals indicated consistent superiority of dynamic guidance across metrics.
When compared to static and freehand methods, dynamic computer-assisted dental implant surgery provides more accuracy and precision. In implant dentistry, adopting dynamic guided systems is essential to attaining the best clinical results and raising patient satisfaction.
与传统徒手操作方法相比，牙种植体植入手术中计算机辅助技术的发展显著改变了传统做法，推动了向更高精度和可预测性的转变。本研究的目的是在准确性和精确性方面评估传统徒手方法与静态 - 动态计算机辅助牙种植体植入程序的效率。
本研究遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南，从PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science等数据库中筛选出438篇文章。纳入标准为随机和非随机对照试验、病例对照和回顾性病例研究，重点关注动态、静态和徒手手术中的平台偏差、角度偏差和根尖偏差。选择了11项研究进行综述，其中9项研究纳入荟萃分析。使用适当的统计模型分析异质性，以确保结果的稳健性和可靠性。
荟萃分析包括9项比较动态、静态和徒手植入技术的牙种植体准确性的研究。动态系统显示出更高的准确性，平台偏差为0.64 - 1.73毫米，角度偏差为2.49° - 5.75°，根尖偏差为0.89 - 1.86毫米。静态系统显示出稍大的变异性，平台偏差为0.97 - 2.34毫米，角度偏差为2.2° - 4.98°。徒手技术表现出最高的偏差，平台偏差高达3.48毫米，角度偏差高达10.09°。预测区间表明动态引导在各项指标上具有一致的优越性。
与静态和徒手方法相比，动态计算机辅助牙种植手术提供了更高的准确性和精确性。在种植牙科中，采用动态引导系统对于获得最佳临床效果和提高患者满意度至关重要。
