IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of the Positional Accuracy of Robotic Dental Implant Placement with Static Guided and Dynamic Navigation Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Objectives: To assess the positional accuracy of robotic guided dental implant placement when compared with static guided or dynamic navigation systems
Methods: A systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (Registration#CRD42022303881).Using the PICOS model, five databases were searched and a total of 11 studies were included in the review, with 9 in-vitro and 2 clinical studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the clinical studies, whereas the QUIN tool was employed for the in-vitro studies. The weighted mean for the coronal, apical and angular implant deviations were calculated and compared.
Results: A total of 771 dental implants were studied in the 11 articles. A high risk of bias was noted in 3 in-vitro studies and 1 clinical study. The remaining studies showed moderate to low risk of bias. the meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference for the coronal deviation (mean difference -0.22 [–0.45, 0.00]). However, a statistically significant difference was noted between robotic guided implant placement and other methods for the apical deviation (mean difference: -0.49 [-0.91, -0.06]) and angular deviation (mean difference: -1.29 [–2.07, -0.5])
Conclusions: Robot-guided dental implant placement improves the apical and angular deviations of dental implants when compared to dynamic guided and static guided implant placement. However, the current quality of evidence is low and requires further investigation.
Methods: A systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (Registration#CRD42022303881).Using the PICOS model, five databases were searched and a total of 11 studies were included in the review, with 9 in-vitro and 2 clinical studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the clinical studies, whereas the QUIN tool was employed for the in-vitro studies. The weighted mean for the coronal, apical and angular implant deviations were calculated and compared.
Results: A total of 771 dental implants were studied in the 11 articles. A high risk of bias was noted in 3 in-vitro studies and 1 clinical study. The remaining studies showed moderate to low risk of bias. the meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference for the coronal deviation (mean difference -0.22 [–0.45, 0.00]). However, a statistically significant difference was noted between robotic guided implant placement and other methods for the apical deviation (mean difference: -0.49 [-0.91, -0.06]) and angular deviation (mean difference: -1.29 [–2.07, -0.5])
Conclusions: Robot-guided dental implant placement improves the apical and angular deviations of dental implants when compared to dynamic guided and static guided implant placement. However, the current quality of evidence is low and requires further investigation.
3878915_File000000.jpg