Purpose: To evaluate how guided and navigation surgical approaches for implant placement affect survival and accuracy.
Keywords: accuracy, guided surgery, implant, navigation surgery, review, survival
Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. The reviews were refereed by two independent investigators using the following PICO question: population—patients with missing maxillary or mandibular teeth; intervention—dental implant guided surgery, dental implant navigation surgery; comparison—conventional implant surgery or historical control; outcome—implant survival, implant accuracy. Singlearm, weighted meta-analyses were performed on navigational and static guided surgery groups for cumulative survival rate and accuracy of implant placement (ie, angular, depth, and horizontal deviation). Group metrics with less than five reports were not synthesized. The study was compiled under PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
Results: A total of 3,930 articles were screened. Full-text review of 93 articles resulted in a total of 56 articles included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Implant placement with a fully guided approach resulted in the following means and 95% CI: cumulative survival rate of 97% (96%, 98%), angular deviation of 3.8 degrees (3.4 degrees, 4.2 degrees), depth deviation of 0.5 mm (0.4 mm, 0.6 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 1.2 mm (1.0 mm, 1.3 mm). Implant placement with a navigation approach resulted in an angular deviation of 3.4 degrees (3.0 degrees, 3.9 degrees), horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 0.9 mm (0.8 mm, 1.0 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant apex of 1.2 mm (0.8 mm, 1.5 mm).
Conclusion: Static guided and navigation surgical approaches for dental implant placement have survival rates comparable to historical controls. Accuracy of implant placement does not differ markedly between these two approaches.