SynthesisJournal of periodontal research2026
Accuracy of Freehand, Static, and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of periodontal research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Freehand, Static, and Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of periodontal research · 2026Pooled it
- Radiographic Imaging Use Across Stages of Implant-Supported Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAlthough static navigation (sCAIS) has been shown to be a well-established technique in clinical practice, innovative methods such as dynamic navigation (dCAIS) are currently on the rise. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the accuracy of freehand (FH), sCAIS, and dCAIS.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis with electronic and manual searches for comparative studies on transfer accuracy (TA) of freehand dental implant placement versus sCAIS versus dCAIS in pre-clinical and clinical studies was conducted. The main outcome was TA between planned and placed implant positions, measured via axial, global coronal, and global apical deviations reported as mean values with standard deviation.
resultsA total of 37 of 4511 screened articles were included, reporting data on 3104 implants across 606 models and 801 patients. Clinical studies revealed no statistically significant differences in TA between dCAIS and sCAIS. The pooled mean deviations were as follows: axial deviation -0.09° [95% CI: -0.66 to 0.48; PI: -2.11; 1.93], global coronal deviation -0.03 mm [95% CI: -0.16 to 0.11; PI: -0.47; 0.42], and global apical deviation -0.24 mm [95% CI: -0.48 to 0.00; PI: -1.12; 0.64]. However, subgroup analysis including RCTs only demonstrated that both sCAIS and dCAIS achieved statistically significantly higher accuracy in all investigated deviation parameters compared to the freehand protocol.
conclusionBoth static and dynamic computer-assisted implant placement techniques are considered reliable methods for enhancing accurate implant positioning, offering significantly greater accuracy compared to the conventional freehand approach. The presence of bias risks and notable heterogeneity in the included investigations warrants careful consideration of the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.