Guided Implant Surgery versus Conventional Implant Placement: A Systematic Review of Accuracy and Complications
Guided implant surgery, Conventional implant placement, Computer-assisted implant surgery, Dynamic navigation, Static guided surgery
AuthorsAbstractBackground: One great advantage of guided implant placement over freehand is the ability to plan the implant placement, make precise incisions and predict the outcome of the clinical scenario. Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement and complications of guided implant surgery versus conventional implant placement. Methods: The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were used for the review. Manual reference screening and electronic searches on PubMed and Google Scholar databases were carried out. A total of 241 records were identified and 11 studies of mixed design were included in the qualitative synthesis. Results: The results revealed that the accuracy of implant placement was generally superior for guided implant surgery (static and dynamic computerassisted systems) than for freehand implant surgery. The guided systems were found to have lesser deviations in the coronal, apical, and angular directions and transfer of digital planning was more in the guided systems. In a few studies, it was also observed that guided surgery had a positive effect on reduced pain and comfort after surgery and reduced complications related to positioning. Nevertheless, there was a correlation between a higher learning curve, technical complexity and procedural cost with the guided implant surgery. Cost, ease of procedure and ease of workflow were all advantages of conventional placement. Conclusion: Guided implant surgery appears to be a reliable and effective method for enhancing implant placement accuracy, although further comparative clinical evidence is required to confirm its effect on surgical complications. 1. INTRODUCTION Dental implantology has emerged as one of the most reliable and wellestablished modalities of treatment to replace missing teeth and restore oral functions, esthetics and patient comfort. The improvement of the implant materials, imaging and digital technology has greatly enhanced the survival rates of implants and the long-term success rates of prosthetics over the past decades (J. D’haese et al., 2017). Proper implant placement is essential to effective implant therapy since incorrect placement can undermine the rehabilitation of prosthetics, esthetics, and biomechanical stability, as well as the adjacent body organs (Feng et al., 2022; Kivovics et al., 2022). In the past, implants were installed by freehand methods of surgery whereby positioning of the implants depended mainly on the experience of the clinician and also the anatomy. Even though the traditional approach of implanting them freehand is still used, angulation, depth, and location of the implants may vary, particularly in anatomically complicated cases (Kasradze et al., 2021). To
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ejprd.org - Published by Riset Publishing Services LLC
EJPRD
Copyright ©2026 by Riset Publishing Services LLC