We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 (2009), Supplement     30. Oct. 2009
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 (2009), Supplement  (30.10.2009)

Supplement, Page 92-109, PubMed:19885437


Computer Technology Applications in Surgical Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review
Jung, Ronald E. / Schneider, David / Ganeles, Jeffrey / Wismeijer, Daniel / Zwahlen, Marcel / Hämmerle, Christoph Hans Franz / Tahmaseb, Ali
Purpose: To assess the literature on accuracy and clinical performance of computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry.
Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information about (1) the accuracy and (2) clinical performance of computer-assisted implant systems. Meta-regression analysis was performed for summarizing the accuracy studies. Failure/complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 12-month proportions.
Results: Twenty-nine different image guidance systems were included. From 2,827 articles, 13 clinical and 19 accuracy studies were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (19 clinical and preclinical studies) revealed a total mean error of 0.74 mm (maximum of 4.5 mm) at the entry point in the bone and 0.85 mm at the apex (maximum of 7.1 mm). For the 5 included clinical studies (total of 506 implants) using computer-assisted implant dentistry, the mean failure rate was 3.36% (0% to 8.45%) after an observation period of at least 12 months. In 4.6% of the treated cases, intraoperative complications were reported; these included limited interocclusal distances to perform guided implant placement, limited primary implant stability, or need for additional grafting procedures.
Conclusion: Differing levels and quantity of evidence were available for computer-assisted implant placement, revealing high implant survival rates after only 12 months of observation in different indications and a reasonable level of accuracy. However, future long-term clinical data are necessary to identify clinical indications and to justify additional radiation doses, effort, and costs associated with computer-assisted implant surgery.

Keywords: computer-assisted implant dentistry, dental implants, navigation