Comparison Between a Computer-Aided Surgical Template and the Free-Hand Method: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

3区医学 Q1 Dentistry Implant Dentistry Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.1097/ID.0000000000000915

Suya Chen, Qianmin Ou, Xuefeng Lin, Yan Wang

{"title":"Comparison Between a Computer-Aided Surgical Template and the Free-Hand Method: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Suya Chen, Qianmin Ou, Xuefeng Lin, Yan Wang","doi":"10.1097/ID.0000000000000915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: During implantation planning, dentists should be able to make an informed decision regarding whether to use an implant template to assist the surgery.Purpose: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the results of implantation with or without an implant template based on the accuracy, survival rate, and other considerations.Materials and methods: In January 2018, a systematic review was undertaken for randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective cohort studies with relevance to implant accuracy and the survival rate between the implant template and free-hand method. The odds ratios (ORs) of the survival rate and the mean difference of accuracy deviation from the selected papers were estimated by meta-analysis.Results: Of the 362 screened articles, 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of the survival rate of implant surgery with or without an implant template revealed no significant result (OR = 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-4.51). Significant differences in accuracy were observed in angular (mean difference = -5.45 degrees, 95% CI -0.66 to -4.24 degrees) and apical deviation (mean difference = -0.83 mm, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.54).Conclusions: With the technology of computer-aided surgical template, implant placement can be more accurate than free-hand operation. No significant difference is observed in the survival rate between template and free-hand.","PeriodicalId":13309,"journal":{"name":"Implant Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/ID.0000000000000915","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implant Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000915","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

Abstract

Background: During implantation planning, dentists should be able to make an informed decision regarding whether to use an implant template to assist the surgery.

Purpose: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the results of implantation with or without an implant template based on the accuracy, survival rate, and other considerations.

Materials and methods: In January 2018, a systematic review was undertaken for randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective cohort studies with relevance to implant accuracy and the survival rate between the implant template and free-hand method. The odds ratios (ORs) of the survival rate and the mean difference of accuracy deviation from the selected papers were estimated by meta-analysis.

Results: Of the 362 screened articles, 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of the survival rate of implant surgery with or without an implant template revealed no significant result (OR = 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-4.51). Significant differences in accuracy were observed in angular (mean difference = -5.45 degrees, 95% CI -0.66 to -4.24 degrees) and apical deviation (mean difference = -0.83 mm, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.54).

Conclusions: With the technology of computer-aided surgical template, implant placement can be more accurate than free-hand operation. No significant difference is observed in the survival rate between template and free-hand.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

计算机辅助手术模板与徒手手术方法的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景:在种植计划期间，牙医应该能够就是否使用种植模板来辅助手术做出明智的决定。目的:本荟萃分析的目的是基于准确性、存活率和其他考虑因素来评估植入或不植入模板的结果。材料与方法:2018年1月，系统回顾了随机对照试验、回顾性和前瞻性队列研究对种植体模板与徒手法种植体准确性和存活率的影响。通过荟萃分析估计入选文献的生存率的优势比(ORs)和准确度偏差的平均差异。结果:在筛选的362篇文章中，有6篇研究被纳入meta分析。使用或不使用种植模板的种植体手术生存率比较无显著差异(or = 1.71, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.65-4.51)。在角度(平均差值= -5.45度，95% CI为-0.66至-4.24度)和根尖偏差(平均差值= -0.83 mm, 95% CI为-1.12至-0.54)上观察到准确性的显著差异。结论:采用计算机辅助手术模板技术，种植体植入比徒手操作更准确。模板组与徒手组存活率无显著差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Implant Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Cessation. Implant Dentistry, an interdisciplinary forum for general practitioners, specialists, educators, and researchers, publishes relevant clinical, educational, and research articles that document current concepts of oral implantology in sections on biomaterials, clinical reports, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral pathology, periodontics, prosthodontics, and research. The journal includes guest editorials, letters to the editor, book reviews, abstracts of current literature, and news of sponsoring societies.