不同计算机辅助种植手术方法下种植牙植入的准确性:临床研究的网络 Meta 分析。

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1111/clr.14357
Basel Mahardawi,Sirimanas Jiaranuchart,Sirida Arunjaroensuk,Kanit Dhanesuan,Nikos Mattheos,Atiphan Pimkhaokham
{"title":"不同计算机辅助种植手术方法下种植牙植入的准确性:临床研究的网络 Meta 分析。","authors":"Basel Mahardawi,Sirimanas Jiaranuchart,Sirida Arunjaroensuk,Kanit Dhanesuan,Nikos Mattheos,Atiphan Pimkhaokham","doi":"10.1111/clr.14357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nComputer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) has been introduced as a tool to aid in reaching a more accurate implant position. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare all the available CAIS techniques and obtain collective evidence on the method that offers the highest accuracy compared to freehand implant placement.\r\n\r\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\r\nDatabase search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library in addition to extensive search in the gray literature and related systematic reviews, aiming to find clinical studies that compared any CAIS technique with another, or with freehand implant placement. The outcomes evaluated were angle, platform, and apex deviation. The search process ended on March 18, 2024.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThirty-three studies were included. All CAIS techniques (static with partial or full guidance, dynamic with partial or full guidance, the combination of static and dynamic CAIS) showed significantly less deviation than freehand implant placement, except for the static CAIS with guidance for the pilot drill only. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS ranked best among all other methods. Based on the GRADE system, the certainty of evidence in the outcomes of the meta-analysis was judged as low or moderate.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe current study demonstrates that computer-assisted implant surgery provides significantly higher accuracy in implant placement, with the combination of static and dynamic CAIS being the most precise. Nevertheless, future studies are needed, considering the different types, locations, and extents of edentulism in the analyzed investigations, as well as the necessity of obtaining stronger evidence.\r\n\r\nTRIAL REGISTRATION\r\nPROSPERIO number: CRD42023482030.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement With Different Methods of Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Basel Mahardawi,Sirimanas Jiaranuchart,Sirida Arunjaroensuk,Kanit Dhanesuan,Nikos Mattheos,Atiphan Pimkhaokham\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\r\\nComputer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) has been introduced as a tool to aid in reaching a more accurate implant position. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare all the available CAIS techniques and obtain collective evidence on the method that offers the highest accuracy compared to freehand implant placement.\\r\\n\\r\\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\\r\\nDatabase search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library in addition to extensive search in the gray literature and related systematic reviews, aiming to find clinical studies that compared any CAIS technique with another, or with freehand implant placement. The outcomes evaluated were angle, platform, and apex deviation. The search process ended on March 18, 2024.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThirty-three studies were included. All CAIS techniques (static with partial or full guidance, dynamic with partial or full guidance, the combination of static and dynamic CAIS) showed significantly less deviation than freehand implant placement, except for the static CAIS with guidance for the pilot drill only. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS ranked best among all other methods. Based on the GRADE system, the certainty of evidence in the outcomes of the meta-analysis was judged as low or moderate.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThe current study demonstrates that computer-assisted implant surgery provides significantly higher accuracy in implant placement, with the combination of static and dynamic CAIS being the most precise. Nevertheless, future studies are needed, considering the different types, locations, and extents of edentulism in the analyzed investigations, as well as the necessity of obtaining stronger evidence.\\r\\n\\r\\nTRIAL REGISTRATION\\r\\nPROSPERIO number: CRD42023482030.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14357\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14357","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的计算机辅助种植手术(CAIS)作为一种工具被引入,以帮助获得更准确的种植体位置。本网络荟萃分析的目的是对所有可用的 CAIS 技术进行比较,并获得与徒手种植体植入相比准确性最高的方法的集体证据。材料和方法除了在灰色文献和相关系统综述中进行广泛搜索外,还在 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane 图书馆中进行了数据库搜索,旨在找到将任何 CAIS 技术与其他技术或徒手种植体植入进行比较的临床研究。评估的结果包括角度、平台和顶点偏差。结果共纳入 33 项研究。所有 CAIS 技术(部分或完全引导的静态 CAIS、部分或完全引导的动态 CAIS、静态和动态 CAIS 的组合)的偏差都明显小于徒手种植体植入,只有仅引导钻的静态 CAIS 除外。在所有方法中,静态和动态 CAIS 的组合效果最好。结论目前的研究表明,计算机辅助种植手术能显著提高种植体植入的精确度,其中静态和动态 CAIS 的组合最为精确。尽管如此,考虑到所分析的调查中存在不同类型、不同位置和不同程度的缺牙,以及获得更有力证据的必要性,未来的研究仍有必要:CRD42023482030。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement With Different Methods of Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.
OBJECTIVE Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) has been introduced as a tool to aid in reaching a more accurate implant position. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare all the available CAIS techniques and obtain collective evidence on the method that offers the highest accuracy compared to freehand implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS Database search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library in addition to extensive search in the gray literature and related systematic reviews, aiming to find clinical studies that compared any CAIS technique with another, or with freehand implant placement. The outcomes evaluated were angle, platform, and apex deviation. The search process ended on March 18, 2024. RESULTS Thirty-three studies were included. All CAIS techniques (static with partial or full guidance, dynamic with partial or full guidance, the combination of static and dynamic CAIS) showed significantly less deviation than freehand implant placement, except for the static CAIS with guidance for the pilot drill only. The combination of static and dynamic CAIS ranked best among all other methods. Based on the GRADE system, the certainty of evidence in the outcomes of the meta-analysis was judged as low or moderate. CONCLUSIONS The current study demonstrates that computer-assisted implant surgery provides significantly higher accuracy in implant placement, with the combination of static and dynamic CAIS being the most precise. Nevertheless, future studies are needed, considering the different types, locations, and extents of edentulism in the analyzed investigations, as well as the necessity of obtaining stronger evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERIO number: CRD42023482030.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
11.60%
发文量
149
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Alveolar Ridge Regeneration With Open Versus Closed Healing in Damaged Extraction Sockets: A Preclinical In Vivo Study. A 10-year Retrospective Clinical Study to Identify Risk Indicators for Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Implant Failure. Accuracy of Zygomatic Implant Placement Using Task‐Autonomous Robotic System or Dynamic Navigation: An In Vitro Study Issue Information Author Index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1