Navigating the future of guided dental implantology: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this scoping review was to understand the development of robotics and its accuracy in placing dental implants when compared to other forms of guided surgery.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on the electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane, and Science direct with the following queries: ((robotics) AND (dental implant)) AND (accuracy). The search timeline was between 2017 and 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were screened for title and abstract, of which 16 were deemed eligible for inclusion. Thirty-one articles were excluded mainly because they were out of topic (not relevant) or not in English. In total, 16 articles were included for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review thoroughly analyses 5 years of literature concerning the evolution of robotics in dental implant surgery, underscoring the necessity for additional research on nascent technologies reported and a comparative study with static and dynamic systems for clinical efficacy evaluation.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN DIGITAL-GUIDED AND NONDIGITAL PROTOCOL IN IMPLANT PLANNING, PLACEMENT, AND RESTORATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to systematically review the current randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with respect to computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) techniques in the process of implant planning, placement, and rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four independent reviewers conducted an electronic and manual literature search using several databases, including the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE. Articles were included if they were RCTs involving the interventions regarding the computer-guided impression, placement, and manufacturing process. The outcomes of interest include clinical and patient-reported outcomes and time efficiency. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the time efficiency, pain severity, accuracy of implant placement, and postsurgery marginal bone level.

RESULTS

A total of 39 and 25 articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis, respectively. The results of the meta-analysis showed that significantly less time was spent performing the digital impression procedure than the conventional impression (P = .002). In addition, the average adjustment time of the final prosthesis was significantly less than the nondigital fabricated prosthesis (P = .0005). Computer-guided groups reported significantly lower painkiller consumption compared to control groups (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital impressions and CAD/CAM procedures are time-saving and provide stable and predictable outcomes. Moreover, computer-guided surgery can effectuate an accurate implant placement and less postsurgery discomfort.

Accuracy of dental implant placement with or without the use of a dynamic navigation assisted system: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess dental implant placement accuracy with a dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (dCAIS) system and a freehand approach. Secondarily, to compare the patients' perception and quality of life (QoL) with the two approaches.

METHODS

A double-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted. Consecutive partially edentulous patients were randomly allocated to the dCAIS or standard freehand approach groups. Implant placement accuracy was evaluated by overlapping the preoperative and postoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomographs (CBCT) and recording linear deviations at the implant apex and platform (in mm) and angular deviations (in degrees). Questionnaires recorded self-reported satisfaction, pain and QoL during surgery and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (22 implants) were enrolled in each group. One patient was lost to follow-up. A significant difference (p < .001) in mean angular deviation was found between the dCAIS (4.02°; 95% CI: 2.85 to 5.19) and the FH (7.97°; 95% CI: 5.36 to 10.58) groups. Linear deviations were significantly lower in the dCAIS group, except for the apex vertical deviation, where no differences were found. Although dCAIS took 14 min longer (95% CI: 6.43 to 21.24; p < .001), patients in both groups considered the surgical time acceptable. Postoperative pain and analgesic consumption during the first postoperative week were similar between groups and self-reported satisfaction was very high.

CONCLUSION

dCAIS systems significantly increase the accuracy of implant placement in partially edentulous patients in comparison with the conventional freehand approach. However, they increase the surgical time significantly and do not seem to improve patient satisfaction or reduce postoperative pain.

Can computer-assisted implant surgery improve clinical outcomes and reduce the frequency and intensity of complications in implant dentistry? A critical review

Computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS), either static or dynamic, is well documented to significantly improve the accuracy of implant placement. Whether the increased accuracy leads to a corresponding improvement in clinical outcomes has not yet been systematically investigated. The aim of this critical review was to investigate whether the use of CAIS can lead to reduction of complications as well as improved clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when compared with conventional freehand implant surgery. A comprehensive online search was conducted to identify studies where implants were installed with static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS)or dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery(d-CAIS) or combinations of the two, either compared with conventional free-hand implant placement or not. Seventy-seven studies were finally included in qualitative analysis, while data from three studies assessing postsurgical pain were suitable for a meta-analysis. Only a small number of the available studies were comparative. The current evidence does not suggest any difference with regard to intraoperative complications, immediate postsurgical healing, osseointegration success, and survival of implants placed with CAIS or freehand protocols. Intraoperative and early healing events as reported by patients in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) did not differ significantly between CAIS used with flap elevation and conventional implant placement. There is limited evidence that increased accuracy of placement with CAIS is correlated with superior esthetic outcomes. Use of CAIS does not significantly reduce the length of surgeries in cases of single implants and partially edentulous patients, although there appears to be a more favorable impact in fully edentulous patients. Although CAIS alone does not seem to improve healing and the clinical and PRO, to the extent that it can increase the utilization of flapless surgery and predictability of immediacy protocols, its use may indirectly lead to substantial improvements in all of the above parameters.

Patient-reported outcome measures comparing static computer-aided implant surgery and conventional implant surgery for single-tooth replacement: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and conventional implant surgery (CIS) for single-tooth replacement in posterior sites in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Forty patients were divided into two groups for treatment with s-CAIS (Test) and CIS (Control). Patients' anxiety level was measured using the modified dental anxiety score before implant surgery. After surgery, patients completed two questionnaires for 7 days. The first questionnaire assessed pain level using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the incident rate of pain using a 5-point Likert scale; analgesic intake was also recorded. The second questionnaire investigated patients' oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) including postoperative symptoms, oral function, and daily activity. The difference between data was compared at significance level (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in pretreatment dental anxiety level, postoperative pain scores, and OHRQoL between treatment groups. Overall, mild or moderate dental anxiety was reported by 70% and 20% of patients, respectively. Pain score was significantly reduced by postoperative Day 3 in the test group and Day 4 in the control group, compared with baseline. Both groups significant reduced analgesic intake by postoperative Day 5. Most OHRQoL-related complaints subsided approximately 3 days after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, PROMs between s-CAIS and CIS were not significantly different for the single-tooth implant surgery in the posterior area. Postoperative symptoms after implant surgery still inevitably occurred, reflecting the normal process of oral wound healing.

Patient's perception of timing concepts in implant dentistry: A systematic review

Protocols for implant dentistry, most frequently include periods until healing of the extraction sockets and osseointegration of the implant. Deductional thinking imply that patients would prefer if treatment time in implant dentistry were reduced.

AIM

What is the patient perception of immediate or early implant placement or loading in comparison with traditional, delayed placement, and/or loading assessed by patient-reported outcome measures, as evidenced in randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled studies?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search up to June 30. All hits were imported into Rayyan online software and analyzed by two authors for eligibility. Cochrane RoB2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias in the individual studies.

RESULTS

Of the initially 1439 articles, 76 underwent full-text analysis and finally 40 articles, representing 35 cohort studies, were included. The quality evaluation demonstrated some concerns among most of the studies.

CONCLUSION

a) There is no strong evidence to support that the time for implant placement or loading of implant-supported single or short-span reconstructions or overdentures influence patients´ discomfort, satisfaction with function or esthetics or overall satisfaction with the implant treatment. b) There is some evidence that studies including edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full-arch FDPs demonstrate more satisfied patients with immediate than for the early or delayed loaded implant reconstructions after short time, but the difference is not clear one year after treatment.

Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement by a Novel In-House Model-Free and Zero-Setup Fully Guided Surgical Template Made of a Light-Cured Composite Resin (VARO Guide®): A Comparative In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

This in vitro study mainly aimed to compare VARO Guide^® to the surgical guide fabricated by CAD/CAM (NAVI Guide^®) in terms of accuracy and efficacy of the implant surgery held in the dentiform model.

METHODS

Twenty surgeons, 10 dentists in the beginner group and 10 dentists in the expert group, participated in the study. Each surgeon conducted fully guided surgery in dentiform models twice, once with VARO Guide^® (VG surgery) and the other time with a conventional type of templates, NAVI Guide^® (NG surgery). Based on the superimposition of presurgical and postsurgical STL files, the positional deviations between the virtually planned and actually placed implants and the time spent on presurgical preparation and surgical procedures were estimated and compared.

RESULTS

All dimensional deviations were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the expert and beginner groups regardless of the guide system. The total procedure time (mean (median)) of the VG surgery (26.33 (28.58) min) was significantly shorter than that of the NG surgery (378.83 (379.35) min; p < 0.05). While the time spent only for the fully guided implant surgery (from the start of the surgical guide sitting onto the dentiform model to the final installation of the implant fixture) was comparable (p > 0.05), the presurgical preparation time spent on virtual implant planning and surgical guide fabrication in the VG surgery (19.63 (20.93) min) was significantly shorter compared to the NG surgery (372.93 (372.95) min; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of experience, both VG and NG surgery showed reliable positional accuracy; however, the total procedure time and the preparation time were much shorter in the VG surgery compared to the NG surgery.

Computer-assisted surgery in medical and dental applications

INTRODUCTION

Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is a broad surgical methodology that utilizes computer technology to both plan and execute surgical intervention. CAS is widespread in both medicine and dentistry as it allows for minimally invasive and precise surgical procedures. Key innovations in volumetric imaging, virtual surgical planning software, instrument tracking, and robotics have assisted in facilitating the transfer of surgical plans to precise execution of surgical procedures. CAS has long been used in certain medical specialties including neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, and interventional radiology, and has since expanded to oral and maxillofacial application, particularly for computer-assisted implant surgery.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an updated overview of the most current research for CAS in medicine and dentistry, with a focus on neurosurgery and dental implant surgery. The MEDLINE electronic database was searched and relevant original and review articles from 2005 to 2020 were included.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent literature suggests that CAS performs favorably in both neurosurgical and dental implant applications. Computer-guided surgical navigation is well entrenched as standard of care in neurosurgery. Whereas static computer-assisted implant surgery has become established in dentistry, dynamic computer-assisted navigation is newly poised to trend upward in dental implant surgery.

Accuracy of computer-assisted, template-guided implant placement compared with conventional implant placement by hand-An in vitro study

Objectives

To compare free‐hand to computer‐assisted implant planning and placement (CAIPP) regarding planned to achieved implant position.

Material and methods

Forty‐eight cast/bone models were mounted in mannequin heads. On each side, a tooth gap of different sizes was created. In the test group (T), study implants were placed using a CAD‐CAM guide based on virtual planning. In the control (C), free‐hand implant placement was performed. After CBCT scanning, the implant position was compared with the planned position. Descriptive statistics were applied, and ANOVA was used to identify differences between groups and gaps. (p < .05).

Results

In C, mean lateral deviations at the implant base amounted to 0.7 mm (max. 1.8) (large gap) and 0.49 mm (1.22) (small gap). In T, 0.18 mm (0.49) and 0.24 mm (0.52) were recorded. At the apex, 0.77 mm (2.04) (large gap) and 0.51 mm (1.24) (small gap) were measured in C, and 0.31 mm (0.83)/0.34 mm (0.93) in T. Mean vertical deviations in C measured 0.46 mm (1.26) (large gap) and 0.45 mm (1.7) (small gap). In T, 0.14 mm (0.44) and 0.28 mm (0.78) were recorded. Mean angular deviations of 1.7° (3.2°) were observed in C (large gap) and 1.36° (2.1°) (small gap). In T, mean values were 1.57° (3.3°) and 1.32° (3.4°). Lateral and vertical deviations were significantly different between groups (not gaps), angular between gaps (not groups).

Conclusions

CAIPP protocols showed smaller deviations irrespective of the size of the tooth gap. In C, the gap size had an influence on the error in angulation only.

Factors Influencing the Accuracy of Freehand Implant Placement: A Prospective Clinical Study

(1) Background: The objective of implant prosthetic restoration is to ensure the best possible rehabilitation of function and esthetics. Optimal positioning of the implant with regard to the bone availability, surrounding soft tissue, and prosthetic sustainability should be strived for during implant placement. The factors influencing freehand implant placement and the accuracy achieved with this procedure are investigated in this prospective clinical study. (2) Methods: Implants were placed in the single-tooth edentulous sites of the premolar and molar areas in 52 patients. Three-dimensional (3D)-planning was performed virtually prior to the freehand implant operation, and the desired position of the implant was provided to the surgeon. (3) Results: The deviations between the planned and the actually achieved position with freehand implant placement showed the following mean values and standard deviations: angle 8.7 ± 4.8°, 3D deviation at the implant shoulder 1.62 ± 0.87 mm, mesiodistal deviation 0.87 ± 0.75 mm, buccolingual deviation 0.70 ± 0.66 mm, and apiocoronal deviation 0.95 ± 0.61 mm. The type of jaw had a significant influence on accuracy. Major deviations were observed in the lower jaw. Furthermore, the timing of implant placement influenced the mesiodistal deviation and angular deviation; (4) Conclusions: Freehand implant placement demonstrated a higher level of deviation between the planned and actually achieved implant positions. In particular, the ranges showed a large spread. From a prosthetic point of view, there may be complications during the restoration of the prosthetic crown if the implant exit point is not optimally located or if the implants show a high angular deviation.

Radiographic Evaluation of Prosthodontic Patients

This article focuses on radiographic imaging with regard to planning, treating, and maintaining partially and completely edentulous prosthodontic patients with dental implants. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the preferred imaging method for pretreatment dental implant treatment planning. Radiographic guides containing radiopaque materials and/or fiducial markers transfer both the proposed prosthesis design and desired implant location for appropriate radiographic evaluation. The three-dimensional CBCT analysis provides information on the adjacent relevant anatomy, bone volume of the edentulous sites, and restorative space assessment.

Accuracy of guided biopsy of the jawbone in a clinical setting: A retrospective analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of a previously described technique for guided biopsy of osseous pathologies of the jawbone in a clinical setting. The data sets of patients who had undergone guided biopsy procedures were retrospectively examined for accuracy. Digital planning of the biopsies and manufacturing of the tooth-supported drilling template were performed with superimposed cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scans using implant planning software. After a trephine biopsy was taken using the template, the postoperative low-dose cone beam computed tomography was analyzed for accuracy using the planning software with the corresponding (digitally-planned) biopsy cylinder. The mean angular deviation was 4.35 ± 2.5°. The mean depth deviation was -1.40 ± 1.41 mm. Guided biopsy seems to be an alternative to a conventional approach for minimally invasive and highly accurate jawbone biopsy.

Comparison between computer-guided and freehand dental implant placement surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare computer-guided (fully guided) and freehand implant placement surgery in terms of marginal bone loss, complications, and implant survival. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019135893). Two independent investigators performed the search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to April 2020 and identified 1508 references. After a detailed review, only four studies were considered eligible. These studies involved a total of 154 patients with 597 dental implants and a mean follow-up period of 2.25 years. There was no difference between computer-guided surgery and freehand surgery in terms of the marginal bone loss (mean difference -0.11mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to 0.04mm; P=0.16), mechanical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-2.04; P=0.72), biological complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.42-5.74; P=0.51), and implant survival rate (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11-2.43; P=0.41). This meta-analysis demonstrated that both computer-guided and freehand surgeries yielded similar results for marginal bone loss, mechanical and biological complications, and implant survival rate.

Static computer-aided, partially guided, and free-handed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the outcomes of static computer-aided implant placement (sCAIP) compared to partially guided (PGIP) and free-handed (FHIP) implant placement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019131397). A comprehensive literature search was performed by two independent examiners. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected. Treatment modalities included sCAIP, PGIP, and FHIP. Data pertaining to the outcomes of interest were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were feasible for a subset of outcomes.

RESULTS

From an initial list of 2,870 records, fourteen articles for a total of ten RCTs were selected. Data from 7 of these studies allowed for the conduction of three meta-analyses comparing accuracy of implant placement across modalities. Survival rate up to 12 months post-loading was high (>98%) and comparable between treatments (low-quality evidence). No tangible differences in terms of patient perception of intra- or postoperative discomfort were observed (low-quality evidence). Quantitative analyses revealed significantly lower angular (MD = 4.41°, 95% CI 3.99-4.83, p < .00001), coronal (MD = 0.65 mm, 95% CI 0.50-0.79, p < .00001), and apical (MD = 1.13 mm, 95% CI 0.92-1.34, p < .00001) deviation values for sCAIP as compared to FHIP (8 studies, 383 patients, 878 implants, high-quality evidence). A similar discrepancy, in favor of sCAIP, was observed for angular deviation only as compared to PGIP (MD = 2.11°, 95% CI 1.06-3.16, p < .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

sCAIP is associated with superior accuracy compared to PGIP and FHIP.

A cross-sectional survey of attitudes towards education in implant dentistry in the undergraduate dental curriculum

BACKGROUND

An ongoing debate in dental education is whether implant dentistry, as a multidisciplinary domain, should be integrated into the undergraduate curriculum. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the perspectives of novices, clinical educators, and experienced dentists with regard to the importance of theoretical and practical implant dentistry teaching content in undergraduate dental education. The specific objective was to determine whether a consensus could be found concerning aspects of theoretical knowledge, implant position planning, implantation, prosthetic treatment procedures, postoperative care, and prerequisite experiences that should be provided in undergraduate dental education.

RESULTS

A positive consensus existed in terms of theoretical education, assistance in surgical and prosthodontic procedures, implant planning and restoration in straightforward cases (i.e., posterior single crowns and bridges, overdentures on nonconnected implants), and postoperative care. A negative consensus existed for bone augmentation. Implantation was supported by novices (i.e., students and graduates). In addition, more experienced dentists were more likely to oppose implantation performed by undergraduates. The most preferred implantation method was implant insertion using a digitally fabricated drilling template, after surgical flap elevation.

CONCLUSIONS

Students and graduates preferred a comprehensive undergraduate education that included implant dentistry. Dentists working in private practice, and especially dentists working as university educators, were critical towards the integration of implant-related learning content into undergraduate education. The intention of medical education is to impart knowledge to students and to prepare them for life-long learning and continual professional development after graduation. Thus, an undergraduate dental curriculum that provides students a solid introduction and knowledge foundation in implant dentistry is recommended.