Accuracy of Planned Versus Actual Implant Placement Using Different Implant Systems: A Systematic Review of Angulation and Positional Deviations.

IF 0.7 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-08-22 DOI:10.1007/s12663-026-03250-y

Yashika Bali, Suresh Venugopalan, Ravpreet Singh, Sourya Kumar

{"title":"Accuracy of Planned Versus Actual Implant Placement Using Different Implant Systems: A Systematic Review of Angulation and Positional Deviations.","authors":"Yashika Bali, Suresh Venugopalan, Ravpreet Singh, Sourya Kumar","doi":"10.1007/s12663-026-03250-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Accurate three-dimensional dental implant placement is essential for achieving predictable functional, esthetic, and biomechanical outcomes. Digital workflows incorporating static surgical guides, dynamic navigation, and robotic-assisted platforms improve implant placement accuracy. However, reported accuracy varies among these guidance modalities, warranting systematic evaluation.Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar identified clinical studies published between January 2015 and May 2025. Studies reporting angular and linear deviations between planned and actual implant positions were included. Data were extracted for freehand, static guided, dynamic navigation, and robotic-assisted implant placement. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively.Results: Eleven clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Robotic-assisted implant placement demonstrated the lowest angular and linear deviations, with mean entry and apical deviations generally below 1 mm and angular deviations frequently below 2°. Dynamic navigation showed intermediate accuracy, whereas static guided surgery demonstrated slightly greater positional deviations. Freehand implant placement consistently showed the greatest deviations. Accuracy was influenced by anatomical location, guide support type, and operator experience.Conclusion: Guided implant placement techniques provide greater accuracy than freehand approaches. Within the available evidence, robotic-assisted systems demonstrated the lowest reported deviations, followed by dynamic navigation and static guided surgery. Guidance modality should reflect clinical complexity, anatomical considerations, and available resources.Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-026-03250-y.","PeriodicalId":47495,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery","volume":"25 5","pages":"1413-1423"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13627619/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-026-03250-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate three-dimensional dental implant placement is essential for achieving predictable functional, esthetic, and biomechanical outcomes. Digital workflows incorporating static surgical guides, dynamic navigation, and robotic-assisted platforms improve implant placement accuracy. However, reported accuracy varies among these guidance modalities, warranting systematic evaluation.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar identified clinical studies published between January 2015 and May 2025. Studies reporting angular and linear deviations between planned and actual implant positions were included. Data were extracted for freehand, static guided, dynamic navigation, and robotic-assisted implant placement. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively.

Results: Eleven clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Robotic-assisted implant placement demonstrated the lowest angular and linear deviations, with mean entry and apical deviations generally below 1 mm and angular deviations frequently below 2°. Dynamic navigation showed intermediate accuracy, whereas static guided surgery demonstrated slightly greater positional deviations. Freehand implant placement consistently showed the greatest deviations. Accuracy was influenced by anatomical location, guide support type, and operator experience.

Conclusion: Guided implant placement techniques provide greater accuracy than freehand approaches. Within the available evidence, robotic-assisted systems demonstrated the lowest reported deviations, followed by dynamic navigation and static guided surgery. Guidance modality should reflect clinical complexity, anatomical considerations, and available resources.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-026-03250-y.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用不同种植体系统计划与实际种植体放置的准确性：角度和位置偏差的系统回顾。

背景：准确的三维牙种植体放置是实现可预测的功能、美学和生物力学结果的必要条件。结合静态手术指南、动态导航和机器人辅助平台的数字化工作流程提高了植入物放置的准确性。然而，报告的准确性在这些制导模式之间有所不同，需要系统的评估。方法：根据PRISMA 2020指南进行系统评价。通过PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌Scholar的电子搜索，确定了2015年1月至2025年5月之间发表的临床研究。研究报告了计划和实际种植体位置之间的角度和线性偏差。提取的数据用于徒手、静态引导、动态导航和机器人辅助种植体放置。使用rob2.0和ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险。由于临床和方法学的异质性，结果是综合叙述。结果：11项临床研究符合纳入标准。机器人辅助种植体植入表现出最低的角度和线性偏差，平均进入和根尖偏差通常低于1mm，角度偏差通常低于2°。动态导航显示中等精度，而静态引导手术显示稍大的位置偏差。徒手种植体放置始终表现出最大的偏差。准确度受解剖位置、导向支架类型和操作人员经验的影响。结论：引导种植体置入技术比徒手置入更准确。在现有证据中，机器人辅助系统显示出最低的报告偏差，其次是动态导航和静态引导手术。指导方式应反映临床复杂性、解剖学考虑和可用资源。补充信息：在线版本包含补充资料，可在https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-026-03250-y上获得。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

138

期刊介绍： This journal offers comprehensive coverage of new techniques, important developments and innovative ideas in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Practice-applicable articles help develop the methods used to handle dentoalveolar surgery, facial injuries and deformities, TMJ disorders, oral cancer, jaw reconstruction, anesthesia and analgesia. The journal also includes specifics on new instruments, diagnostic equipment’s and modern therapeutic drugs and devices. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery is recommended for first or priority subscription by the Dental Section of the Medical Library Association. Specific topics covered recently have included: ? distraction osteogenesis ? synthetic bone substitutes ? fibroblast growth factors ? fetal wound healing ? skull base surgery ? computer-assisted surgery ? vascularized bone grafts Benefits to authorsWe also provide many author benefits, such as free PDFs, a liberal copyright policy, special discounts on Elsevier publications and much more. Please click here for more information on our author services.