徒手与计算机辅助(动态和静态)牙种植体放置准确性的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Saurav Banerjee, Anasua Debnath, Priyanjali Paul, Tridib Nath Banerjee
{"title":"徒手与计算机辅助(动态和静态)牙种植体放置准确性的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Saurav Banerjee, Anasua Debnath, Priyanjali Paul, Tridib Nath Banerjee","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_369_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>When compared to conventional freehand procedures, the development of computer-assisted techniques in dental implant insertion surgery has significantly changed traditional practices, bringing about a movement toward improved precision and predictability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of traditional freehand methods versus static-dynamic computer-assisted dental implant placement procedures in terms of accuracy and precision.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, screening 438 articles from databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized control trials, case controls and retrospective case studies, focusing on platform deviation, angular deviation, and apical deviation in dynamic, static, and freehand surgeries. Eleven studies were selected for a review, with nine studies included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was analyzed using appropriate statistical models to ensure robust findings and reliability of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included nine studies comparing dental implant accuracy across dynamic, static, and freehand placement techniques. Dynamic systems showed superior accuracy, with platform deviations of 0.64-1.73 mm, angular deviations of 2.49°-5.75°, and apical deviations of 0.89-1.86 mm. Static systems showed slightly greater variability, with platform deviations of 0.97-2.34 mm and angular deviations of 2.2°-4.98°. Freehand techniques demonstrated the highest deviations, with platform deviations up to 3.48 mm and angular deviations up to 10.09°. Prediction intervals indicated consistent superiority of dynamic guidance across metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When compared to static and freehand methods, dynamic computer-assisted dental implant surgery provides more accuracy and precision. In implant dentistry, adopting dynamic guided systems is essential to attaining the best clinical results and raising patient satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"25 1","pages":"22-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11853947/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of accuracy in freehand versus computer-assisted (dynamic and static) dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Saurav Banerjee, Anasua Debnath, Priyanjali Paul, Tridib Nath Banerjee\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jips.jips_369_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>When compared to conventional freehand procedures, the development of computer-assisted techniques in dental implant insertion surgery has significantly changed traditional practices, bringing about a movement toward improved precision and predictability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of traditional freehand methods versus static-dynamic computer-assisted dental implant placement procedures in terms of accuracy and precision.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, screening 438 articles from databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized control trials, case controls and retrospective case studies, focusing on platform deviation, angular deviation, and apical deviation in dynamic, static, and freehand surgeries. Eleven studies were selected for a review, with nine studies included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was analyzed using appropriate statistical models to ensure robust findings and reliability of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included nine studies comparing dental implant accuracy across dynamic, static, and freehand placement techniques. Dynamic systems showed superior accuracy, with platform deviations of 0.64-1.73 mm, angular deviations of 2.49°-5.75°, and apical deviations of 0.89-1.86 mm. Static systems showed slightly greater variability, with platform deviations of 0.97-2.34 mm and angular deviations of 2.2°-4.98°. Freehand techniques demonstrated the highest deviations, with platform deviations up to 3.48 mm and angular deviations up to 10.09°. Prediction intervals indicated consistent superiority of dynamic guidance across metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When compared to static and freehand methods, dynamic computer-assisted dental implant surgery provides more accuracy and precision. In implant dentistry, adopting dynamic guided systems is essential to attaining the best clinical results and raising patient satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"22-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11853947/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_369_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_369_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:与传统的徒手操作相比,计算机辅助技术在牙科种植植入手术中的发展显著改变了传统的做法,带来了精度和可预测性的提高。本研究的目的是评估传统徒手方法与静态动态计算机辅助牙种植体放置程序在准确性和精密度方面的效率。方法:本研究遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,从PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science等数据库中筛选438篇文章。纳入标准为随机和非随机对照试验、病例对照和回顾性病例研究,重点关注动态、静态和徒手手术的平台偏差、角度偏差和根尖偏差。11项研究被纳入综述,其中9项研究被纳入meta分析。异质性分析使用适当的统计模型,以确保稳健的发现和结果的可靠性。结果:荟萃分析包括九项研究,比较动态、静态和徒手放置技术的种植体准确性。动态系统精度较高,平台偏差为0.64 ~ 1.73 mm,角偏差为2.49°~ 5.75°,顶点偏差为0.89 ~ 1.86 mm。静态系统表现出稍大的变异性,平台偏差为0.97-2.34 mm,角偏差为2.2°-4.98°。徒手技术表现出最大的偏差,平台偏差达3.48 mm,角度偏差达10.09°。预测区间表明动态制导在各指标间具有一致的优越性。结论:与静态方法和徒手方法相比,动态计算机辅助种植牙手术具有更高的准确性和精密度。在种植牙科中,采用动态引导系统是获得最佳临床效果和提高患者满意度的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of accuracy in freehand versus computer-assisted (dynamic and static) dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Comparison of accuracy in freehand versus computer-assisted (dynamic and static) dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Comparison of accuracy in freehand versus computer-assisted (dynamic and static) dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Comparison of accuracy in freehand versus computer-assisted (dynamic and static) dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: When compared to conventional freehand procedures, the development of computer-assisted techniques in dental implant insertion surgery has significantly changed traditional practices, bringing about a movement toward improved precision and predictability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of traditional freehand methods versus static-dynamic computer-assisted dental implant placement procedures in terms of accuracy and precision.

Methodology: This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, screening 438 articles from databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized control trials, case controls and retrospective case studies, focusing on platform deviation, angular deviation, and apical deviation in dynamic, static, and freehand surgeries. Eleven studies were selected for a review, with nine studies included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was analyzed using appropriate statistical models to ensure robust findings and reliability of the results.

Results: The meta-analysis included nine studies comparing dental implant accuracy across dynamic, static, and freehand placement techniques. Dynamic systems showed superior accuracy, with platform deviations of 0.64-1.73 mm, angular deviations of 2.49°-5.75°, and apical deviations of 0.89-1.86 mm. Static systems showed slightly greater variability, with platform deviations of 0.97-2.34 mm and angular deviations of 2.2°-4.98°. Freehand techniques demonstrated the highest deviations, with platform deviations up to 3.48 mm and angular deviations up to 10.09°. Prediction intervals indicated consistent superiority of dynamic guidance across metrics.

Conclusion: When compared to static and freehand methods, dynamic computer-assisted dental implant surgery provides more accuracy and precision. In implant dentistry, adopting dynamic guided systems is essential to attaining the best clinical results and raising patient satisfaction.

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
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信