Purpose. To evaluate the relative efficacy and estimate a treatment ranking of the positional accuracy of guided implant placement, including robotic surgery, dynamic navigation, static guide, and freehand surgery. Materials and methods. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Randomized controlled trials comparing different guided approaches were included. The primary outcome was positional accuracy. Risks of bias assessment, network meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and quality of evidence assessment were performed. Results. A total of 21 studies (956 participants and 1632 implants) were included. Robotic surgery, static guide, and dynamic navigation showed significantly less platform deviation (mean difference [95% confidence interval]: -0.67 [- 0.86; -0.48] mm, -0.65 [-0.74; -0.56] mm, -0.60 [-0.70; -0.50] mm), apex (-1.35 [-1.70; -0.99] mm, -0.93 [-1.09; -0.76] mm, -0.90 [-1.09; -0.71] mm), and angular deviation (-5.29 [-6.78; -3.79]°, -4.09 [-4.74; -3.45]°, -3.69 [-4.48; -2.90]°) compared with freehand surgery. Robotic surgery was the best candidate to achieve high positional accuracy, followed by static guide and dynamic navigation. Robotic surgery showed significantly higher apex accuracy compared with static guide and dynamic navigation. Conclusions. Within the limitation of the study, robotic surgery achieves higher positional accuracy. All three guided approaches have great potential in dental implant surgery.
Palabras clave: Dental implant, Robotic surgery, Dynamic navigation, Static guide, three-dimensional position, Systematic review
