Background
Accurate implant placement is essential in reducing post‐treatment complications and in ensuring a successful treatment outcome.
Purpose
To compare the accuracy of fully‐guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery (s‐CAIS) using partially‐ and fully‐digital workflows.
Materials and methods
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the accuracy of fully‐guided s‐CAIS procedures utilizing tooth‐supported guides. Quantitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of partially‐ and fully‐digital workflows, and survival rates and complications were qualitatively analyzed.
Results
Thirteen studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 7 prospective clinical studies, were selected for quantitative and qualitative synthesis. A total of 669 implants in 325 patients using s‐CAIS were available for review. Meta‐analysis of the accuracy revealed a total mean angular deviation of 2.68° (95% CI: 2.32°‐3.03°); mean global coronal deviation of 1.03 mm (95% CI: 0.88‐1.18 mm); mean global apical deviation of 1.33 mm (95% CI: 1.17‐1.50 mm); and mean depth deviation of 0.59 mm (95% CI: 0.46‐0.70 mm). Minimal differences were found between the two different workflows. Few complications were reported, and survival rates were between 97.8% to 100% (range of follow‐up: 12 to 24 months) in the available studies.
Conclusion
Similar accuracy is obtained when implants are placed in partially edentulous patients using fully‐guided s‐CAIS, independently of the workflow utilized.