The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants · 2026
Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in Full Arches: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies with Meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oliveira Dos Santos Tarla, Lidani Rangel, Pauletto Patrícia, Sabatini Gabriela, Awais Rafia, Dutra Vinicius, Mezzomo Luis André
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of dental implants in full arches placed by means of static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent and calibrated reviewers selected studies based on predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data on study, population, intervention, and outcome (accuracy) characteristics. Risk of bias and the quality of evidence assessments of the included articles were performed by an independent and blinded reviewer. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model at a 5% significance level.
RESULTS: Thirty studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 9 controlled clinical trials, and 16 case series) were included. Overall, 2,056 implants in the arches of 416 patients (161 men, 188 women, and 67 unknown) were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis revealed statistically significant mean horizontal linear distortions at implant neck and apex levels of 1.18 mm (95% CI: 1.00, 1.35) (P < .001) and 1.46 mm (95% CI: 1.22, 1.69) (P < .001), respectively; significant mean vertical linear distortion at an implant depth level of 0.58 mm (95% CI: 0.18, 0.98) (P < .001); and significant mean angular distortion of 3.65 degrees (95% CI: 2.97, 4.33) (P < .001). Accuracy did not differ significantly between the maxilla and mandible for all parameters assessed (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of s-CAIS in full arches is within a clinically acceptable range, and a 2-mm horizontal and 1-mm vertical safety margin should always be respected during planning. This safety margin can ensure better results in full arches with resorbed bone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent and calibrated reviewers selected studies based on predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data on study, population, intervention, and outcome (accuracy) characteristics. Risk of bias and the quality of evidence assessments of the included articles were performed by an independent and blinded reviewer. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model at a 5% significance level.
RESULTS: Thirty studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 9 controlled clinical trials, and 16 case series) were included. Overall, 2,056 implants in the arches of 416 patients (161 men, 188 women, and 67 unknown) were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis revealed statistically significant mean horizontal linear distortions at implant neck and apex levels of 1.18 mm (95% CI: 1.00, 1.35) (P < .001) and 1.46 mm (95% CI: 1.22, 1.69) (P < .001), respectively; significant mean vertical linear distortion at an implant depth level of 0.58 mm (95% CI: 0.18, 0.98) (P < .001); and significant mean angular distortion of 3.65 degrees (95% CI: 2.97, 4.33) (P < .001). Accuracy did not differ significantly between the maxilla and mandible for all parameters assessed (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of s-CAIS in full arches is within a clinically acceptable range, and a 2-mm horizontal and 1-mm vertical safety margin should always be respected during planning. This safety margin can ensure better results in full arches with resorbed bone.