Failure rates associated with guided versus non-guided dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Główni autorzy: Nancy Abdelhay (Autor), Soni Prasad (Autor), Monica Prasad Gibson (Autor)
• Format: Książka
• Wydane: Nature Publishing Group, 2021-08-01T00:00:00Z.
• Hasła przedmiotowe: article
• Dostęp online: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1038/s41405-021-00086-1; 2056-807X
• Keywords: Dentistry; RK1-715
• Source: BDJ Open, Vol 7, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2021)

Abstract Objective The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate implant failure rates and their association with guided and free-hand implant placement techniques. Materials and methods A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Medline via Ovid, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar. The search was completed in September 2020. Series of meta-analyses were conducted to compare implant failure rates with guided and free-hand techniques. Results A total of 3387 articles were identified from the electronic search. After applying the inclusion criteria, eight articles were selected for qualitative assessment and four for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The included studies had a risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.58), P < 0.001 for the use of guided implant placement. Implant failure rates were affected by the different placement techniques indicated by the test for overall effect (Z = 3.53, P = 0.0004). The incidence of implant failure in guided surgery versus free-hand surgery was found to be 2.25% and 6.42%, respectively. Conclusion Both guided and free-hand implant placement techniques resulted in a high implant survival rate. However, implant failure rates were almost three times higher in the free-hand implant placement category. A guided implant placement approach is recommended for a successful outcome.