SynthesisClinical oral implants research2026
Accuracy of Static, Dynamic, and Robotic Guided Surgery in Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic surgery vs dynamic navigation: does greater accuracy make the difference in implant dentistry?Evidence-based dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of static, dynamic, and robotic computer-assisted protocols in immediate implant placement (IIP), compared to freehand (FH) techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was conducted for studies published through March 2025. Clinical studies on Computer-Aided Implant Surgery (CAIS), reporting angular and/or linear deviations between the planned and actual implant position after IIP were included. Eligible designs comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), prospective/retrospective cohort studies (Retro), and prospective/retrospective case series (PCS/RCS). A network meta-analysis was performed to assess deviations in implant angulation, platform, and apex positions among FH, half-guided static (HG-sCAIS), fully-guided static (FG-sCAIS), dynamic (dCAIS), and robotic (rCAIS) protocols. Covariates such as jaw, site position, study design, and risk of bias were included. Two post hoc sensitivity analyses were also conducted.
resultsEighteen studies encompassing 780 immediately placed implants were analyzed (6 RCTs; 2 PCS; 7 RCS; 3 Retro). Compared with FH, every guided protocol significantly enhanced accuracy. Mean angular deviation decreased by 3.36° with rCAIS, 2.66° with dCAIS, 1.73° with HG-sCAIS, and 1.85° with FG-sCAIS (p < 0.05). Corresponding reductions in platform deviation were 0.68, 0.71, 0.27, and 0.54 mm, while apex deviation decreased by 1.43, 1.32, 1.23, and 0.81 mm, respectively (p < 0.05). rCAIS and dCAIS ranked highest across all metrics.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, guided surgery significantly improves the accuracy of immediate implant placement. rCAIS and dCAIS demonstrated the most favorable accuracy profiles, although sensitivity analyses restricted to higher-quality evidence suggest that differences among guided protocols may be less pronounced.
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.